This person lambasts me on the report published yesterday from the International Development Select Committee of which I am a member without even bothering to pick up a phone to check her facts. Why do people accept such lazy and inaccurate reporting. I enclose below two communications I have had with the Chairman of this Committee.
Committee Wrong to Bring Hamas in From the Cold
Daniel Kawczynski, the Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and member of the House of Commons International Development Committee, has distanced himself from his fellow Committee members for advocating negotiations with Hamas, the Palestinian militant organisation.
The Committee’s report on the “Humanitarian and Development Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories” is published today, and Mr Kawczynski, along with his Conservative colleague Stephen Crabb MP, has refused to support its call for ending the current policy of isolating Hamas.
The report argues that the principles set out jointly by the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia, known collectively as the “Quartet,” should be discarded. The principles demand from Hamas the renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel’s right to exist and unconditional support for pre-existing peace agreements, and were reiterated at the Annapolis Peace Conference, in November last year.
Commenting on the Committee’s stance, Mr Kawczynski said, “It is extremely disappointing that the Committee has in essence given tacit acceptance to Hamas’s violent methods. The message this report sends to Hamas is that it should expect to be included in peace negotiations while continuing its terror attacks.”
“A two-state solution was accepted by all parties at the Annapolis Conference, providing for a secure Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state. This outcome will never be possible as long as Hamas refuse to accept Israel’s right even to exist.”
Mr Kawczynski called on Israel to meet its humanitarian commitments in the light of the ceasefire but warned that this must be just the first step by Hamas. “I welcome the recent ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in Gaza; it is a step in the right direction.”
“Israel must now take concrete steps to improve the distressing humanitarian situation, in particular by allowing greater mobility into and within Gaza. The provision of fuel for example is vital to ensure access to clean water and electricity.”
“However, Hamas cannot think it has done enough. All acts of violence are unacceptable, and as long as rocket attacks continue on Israel, Hamas needs to know that it will be viewed as a terrorist organisation, with political pretensions.”
Mr Kawczynski also questioned whether it was the Committee’s place to be making such recommendations: “This is the International Development Committee and its purpose is to improve the humanitarian situation in countries. However, it has conferred on itself in this instance the responsibility for making foreign policy suggestions. I feel very uncomfortable with this as it could set a precedent.”
“We repeatedly call on all sides to exercise restraint and to avoid steps which would undermine the Middle East Peace Process but then don’t think twice before making inflammatory and unacceptable demands. Some people refuse to acknowledge that Israel is a democratic, sovereign state, recognised by the United Nations, and respect her accordingly.”
Mr Kawczynski also supported Mr Crabb’s attempt to remove a section of the report criticising the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The Agreement codifies EU-Israeli relations, including Israel in a free trade area, and is a regular target for pressure groups demanding a boycott of Israel.
Mr. Kawczynski said, “It is deeply regretably that an International Development Committee, concerned with improving the economic condition of people, should promote a course of action that would actually worsen their situation.”
“It is also worrying for the Committee not to have acknowledged that the economies of Israel and Palestine are inextricably linked. Many Palestinians depend on their ability to find work in Israel. Even if there was a justification for such a policy it would only hurt those you supposedly sought to help.”
– ends –
"I understand your disappointment but I feel that at no point did I mislead you as to my position. My views on the key points were summed up by Stephen's interjections and his amendments, which I hoped would be clear. One of your objections with the manner in which I have approached this was that the Committee members never had the chance to address my concerns. On the contrary I feel that they did have that opportunity when discussing Stephen's concerns which so closely reflected my own. It is indeed a great pity that I could not be there to vote for his amendments, but the record will also make it clear that my vote would not have changed the Committee's opinions.
There are many aspects of the report that I support but there are key elements that I do not. I fear also that it is the latter that will draw the most attention. As a member of the Committee my name will appear on the report and I believe I would be remiss not to make it clear where our positions diverge.
As for your belief that my statement misrepresents the Committee's position, I cannot agree.
Firstly the underlying tone of the report is consistently critical of Israel to a degree that it is not of Hamas. An example of the anti-Israeli language is the statement that "continued violence between the Israeli Defence Force and Hamas led Israel to close all crossings from Israel to Gaza." This is disingenuous: Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel are the reason Israel shut the crossings, not IDF actions.
In contrast “the international community should do more to press Israel to release the [Palestinian] parliamentarians and other prisoners it holds without trial, just as it presses for the release of corporal Shalit who is held by militant groups in Gaza”. Shalit was kidnapped and is being held not by "militant groups in Gaza", but specifically by Hamas. This is so deliberately vague that it can only be intended to gloss over Hamas's outrages.
The report also talks of the international community creating tension between Hamas and Fatah as a result of bolstering "one side against the other". Should we have supported Hamas, a terrorist organisation, equally? Or perhaps supported neither side despite Fatah's acceptance of the three principles?
But perhaps the clearest example of this bias is in the phrase "Hamas must be encouraged to meet the Quartet conditions and Israel must open the borders and allow full humanitarian access". While Israel "must" do something, Hamas "must be encouraged" to do something. Encouraging Hamas to renounce terror is insufficient, it must do so.
There is no moral equivalence between a legitimate sovereign state and a terrorist organisation. The report's tone and failure to make this fundamental point, is indefensible.
Secondly the Committee undoubtedly strays into territory that is not in its remit. A report entitled the "Humanitarian and Development Situation" has no need to discuss how to improve the Palestinian security situation, the failings of the Annapolis Conference, or the inclusion of Hamas in negotiations. These are issues of Foreign Policy.
Finally in addressing these foreign policy questions the report advocates actions which are contrary to the international consensus as set out at Annapolis, which I might add was supported by the likes of Fatah and Saudi Arabia. The most harmful of these recommendations is arguing for dialogue with Hamas without its acceptance of the Quartet's principles.
In fact the report explicitly proposes dialogue with Hamas not on the basis of acceptance of the principles, but, as a result of the opportunity presented by the ceasefire, purely with an "objective of moving towards its acceptance". The ceasefire is indeed an important development but it is not the first and there is no guarantee of it lasting. Hamas as the "de facto power" in Gaza is complicit in the continuing attacks by Islamic Jihad. Hamas cannot pick and choose parts of the peace process.
By urging the "UK Government to seize this opportunity" the report suggests that it is Britain's responsibility to include Hamas in the peace process. It is not. It is Hamas's alone. To suggest "dialogue" with Hamas before it accepts the principles but then only offer "negotiations" once it has done so is an artificial distinction. Hamas knows without any doubt the conditions required of it, and until it renounces violence, recognises Israel and adheres to prior agreements there can be no justification for further engagement.
I hope I have made my position clear with respect to my actions as a Committee member and to my subsequent dissenting view. I look forward to working constructively with you in future.
Regards,
Daniel Kawczynski MP"
