Gilad Shalit returns to Israel

After over five years in captivity - since being kidnapped by Hamas in 2006 - Gilad Shalit was finally released today.


During his imprisonment, the soldier was allowed no visitors, no correspondence or contact with the outside world or even visitation from the Red Cross. In 2009, I visited the UK Red Cross, with Alistair Burt MP, who was then an officer of Conservative Friends of Israel.  We asked the RC to do all they could to use all the channels available, to allow some access to Corporal Shalit.  Sadly, nothing improved and Shalit continued to be kept in solitary confinement.


In order to secure his release, Israel agreed to release over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were involved in terrorist atrocities - such as the bombing of a Jewish Passover dinner in Netanya in March 2002.  As I said in the Commons last week, the fact that Israel was prepared to release so many terrorists, in return for just one, not only showed her commitment to the lives of her soldiers, but also her commitment to bringing about peace.


My question in the Commons went like this:
13 Oct 2011 : Column 507

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I commend my right hon. Friend and, particularly, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon.  Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on their work over many years to secure the release of Gilad Shalit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Israel has released more then 1,000 prisoners, many of whom were involved in horrific terrorist atrocities, shows that it is willing to negotiate and to make some moves towards peace?
Mr Hague: Yes, I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, as does the Under-Secretary; we are grateful for that. The release does show such willingness, but it is now important to replicate it in other negotiations.  In this case, Israel has made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) suggests, a decisive offer to bring about the release of Gilad Shalit; we now need Israel to make decisive offers on a much grander scale in order to bring about a two-state solution. That is what we urge it to do in the coming weeks. It will be necessary for Israel to do so if we are to arrive at that two-state solution, because without that solution Israel will be in a steadily more isolated and dangerous international situation.

Conservative Friends of Israel have put the following announcement:

The Prime Minister made the following statement:

“I know that people across Britain will share in the joy and relief felt by Gilad Shalit and his family today. I can only imagine the heartache of the last five years, and I am full of admiration for the courage and fortitude which Sergeant Shalit and his family have shown through his long cruel and unjustified captivity. I congratulate Prime Minister Netanyahu and everyone involved for bringing him home safely, and hope this prisoner exchange will bring peace a step closer.

“Britain will continue to stand by Israel in defeating terrorism. We remain strongly committed to the cause of peace in the Middle East – with Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in security. We will continue to work for direct negotiations to achieve that end.”

Parliamentary Chairman of CFI, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP said:

“Captured in a cross border attack from inside Israel and imprisoned for over 1000 days the release of Sergeant Gilad Shalit has been a very long time coming. It is impossible to imagine the hardship and suffering that has been endured, but throughout, Gilad and the Shalit family have shown resilience, strength and astonishing determination. I congratulate Prime Minister Netanyahu. Like every good Prime Minister he listened to what the people wanted and he made the tough decisions. He did the right thing.  We must however not confuse this victory for humanity as a victory for Hamas. As Israel and the Palestinians continue to work towards peace and two states for two peoples it remains as clear as ever that Hamas cannot play a part in this process with their ideology intact. The UK must continue to ensure that the Quartet Principles are upheld and re-enforced.”

P.S. James Arbuthnot has written an article for Conservative Home which explains why Israel puts such a high price on the lives of its soldiers and emphasises the importance of maintaining pressure on Hamas. You can read the article on the link HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

We Must Not Negotiate With Terrorists

Yesterday at Party Conference, I spoke about terrorism and extremism in the UK.

The key points that I made were:

- The story of Islamist extremism in the UK is one of Danegeld, and King Canute. Danegeld, because for too long we have thought that if we appease extremists, this will stop the violence. As the Prime Minister said in his Munich speech: “When a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them. The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage is a case in point.” We see this manifested in our universities, our approach to extremists in the UK, and in battles within Government about who should be banned from Britain. As with all Dane-geld, the policy has failed.

- Second, I want to mention King Canute, because I am not a pessimist. I believe we can turn back the tide. By the end of the Labour Government, Ministers like Hazel Blears and Tony Blair himself had started to take the right approach – although too often they had to fight the status quo, the prevailing logic of the Establishment, which said that Britain’s only hope was to appease the problem. But thanks to the work of many people here, the new Prevent Strategy and the David Cameron’s Munich speech have changed the rules of the game. This Government accepts that appeasement doesn’t work.

- Even Muslim nations think we have let extremism go too far. One story crystalises the problem for me. On a visit to Kurdistan, the Kurdish Prime Minister told me he had been to England, visiting a mosque in the north. He said if he had seen that kind of mosque in Kurdistan he would have shut it down overnight, because of its radicalism and aggression. When a Muslim leader, of a progressive Muslim nation, says that he is uncomfortable with the extremism of some British mosques – Surely, there can be no better description of the problem we face.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEM
- There is evidence of radicalisation around us. One of the biggest challenges in this debate, is the inertia of many people who are blind to what is happening, because it has not directly affected their lives. We need to show them that this is not a new problem. In 2006, the Education Secretary set out in Celsius 7/7 how the West had failed to stand up for its liberal values, saying: “The British State does not have the courage to face down the advocates of political Islam. Islamists in Britain scent weakness.” Sadly, evidence of radicalisation on University campuses is old news: in 1997 the Committee of Vice Chancellors warned us about it; in 2006 Anthony Glees warned us again; and last year, MI5 identified more than 39 university campuses as “vulnerable to violent extremism” (according to research by Student Rights and the Henry Jackson Society). For nearly 15 years, the problem has been getting worse.

- This is not just a battle against terrorism. It is a battle of ideas. On one side there is freedom, democracy, religious tolerance, equality for women, property rights, a free press, and the rule of law. And on the other side there is holy jihad, the subjugation of women and minorities, and the aim of re-establishing a Caliphate regime. This is what we have to recognise, that there is a fifth column in our midst.

WHERE THE UK HAS APPEASED EXTREMISM
- Some of our universities have become ‘outposts’ for Middle Eastern dictators. For too long, we have done deals with barbaric regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Libya, for the sake of so-called security and commercial interests. This has slowly crept into a tolerance not just of them, but of their values and ideas: it has become a vicious circle. Student Rights has set out much of the evidence HERE. As the Guardian has said: in 2009, Durham signed a ‘memorandum of understanding’ with Iran, and Dr. Colin Turner, a member of Durham’s Iranian Studies Centre, later admitted to the Guardian: “Iranian money comes with strings attached, as we have found to our chagrin.” 

- This is classic Entryist tactics. We have to ask: what is in this deal for them? Is it to promote their extremist ideology? What kind of legitimacy are they buying? The amounts of money may be small in comparison with British GDP, or the Defence Budget, but so much of this is about symbolism.

- One of the results is that the UK now exports terrorism, as the new Prevent Strategy notes. Since 1989, terrorism has become one of our most infamous exports, and around 70 British students have been involved in terrorist attacks. Waheed Zahman and Umar Farok Abdulmutalab were both Presidents of Islamic Societies at London Universities. The suicide bomber in Sweden last year was a British university graduate. Prevent paragraph 10.61 says that ONE THIRD of people jailed for Al Qa’ida crimes in the UK have been university graduates. In paragraph 10.66 it goes on to say: “Hizb-ut-Tahrir target specific universities and colleges with the objective of radicalising and recruiting those students.”

- Inevitably some of the old Prevent strategy was hijacked by well-intentioned but ineffective groups. Now, moving on to the extremist groups that surround our universities, I accept that Tony Blair and others had begun to get a real understanding of the problem. But it was wrong to give them taxpayers’ money. In fact, much of the Prevent money was simply wasted: in the Wall Street Journal, Douglas Murray noted how a multicultural food-festival in Oxfordshire received Prevent funds, “as though the residents of Banbury were but one Balti away from detonation”.

- We have allowed extremist groups, or their front organisations, to operate too freely. I welcome the Government proscribing many of the 50 groups on the Home Office list – although there is the problem of hydra’s head, where they change names and pop up again. Too many of these groups are apologists for terrorism: part of the conveyor belt that is not serious about opposing extremism, alongside radical groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

- Whitehall Officials have sometimes been too willing to side with hate-preachers. A year ago, in September 2010, the Daily Telegraph reported that Charles Farr, Director-General for Security and Counter-Terrorism, pledged support for Zakir Naik to enter Britain. This was against the judgement of the Home Secretary (who has taken a firm line), and Mr Farr was suspended following a row in the media.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE
- I welcome the revised Prevent strategy, for two reasons. First, it makes a much clearer distinction between counter-terrorist work, and cultural integration, which is right. Second, it stops the taxpayer funding of extremists. Public money will NO LONGER be provided to extremist groups that do not support the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and tolerance.

- If I have one concern, it is that there must be no excuses for inaction. There is a famous saying, that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Sometimes there is a criticism, that the Prevent strategy can read like one of Sir Humphrey’s committees: page after page of debates, discussions, forums, learning seminars, general education, conferences, training... Yes, it is important to consult people. But this must not become an excuse for inaction.

- We now need zero tolerance. No more appeasement. If Prevent is to mean anything, we need no more invitations to hate preacher Raed Salah, to speak in Parliament. No more “indefinite leave to remain” for Mohammed Sawalha, who the BBC say is currently in London, fundraising for Hamas, although I understand that he has denied this. To those who oppose zero tolerance, I say two things: First, we cannot stop burglary, but we still chase thieves. Crime is crime. We must not appease it. Second, symbols are important. If we are determined, extremists will get the message. For example, it is incredible that Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority are now cracking down on Hizb ut-Tahrir (according to their own website) but we still allow it to flourish here in the UK. 

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

You can't negotiate with a gun to your head

Today, there was a short debate about the possible vote for a Palestinian State in the United Nations.  I made the point, that whilst Israel supported the establishment for a Palestinian State through negotiation, it was difficult to negotiate with a partner (Hamas), that is part terrorist, refuses to recognise Israel, and fires missiles onto Israeli Towns, to cause maximum damage to civilians.

My question is below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that when Netanyahu visited the United States in May 2011 he said that he wanted to negotiate with the Palestinians and that Israel would not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state? However, does he not also agree that it is difficult to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority when its main partner is Hamas, which refuses to recognise Israel or renounce terrorism and continues to fire missiles on Israeli towns?

Alistair Burt: Our position on Hamas is well known and we have no contact with it. However, as we know, there are difficulties on all sides, and each side has reasons why it has not wanted to proceed to negotiations or why it might rebuff others. Equally, each side knows that if it really wants a settlement, it is in its power to try to overcome those difficulties, seek confidence and assurances from each other and move on. What is different now—this may come through next week—is the urgency of the situation, as conveyed by the whole international community. We need to make progress and that requires all sides to be prepared to take the steps to help that happen, difficult though they may be.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

The Middle East: Listening to debate

There was a House of Commons Debate on the Middle East today. I had hoped to speak in the debate, but was not called this time. Such is the way of the Commons. Nevertheless, I thought you might like to see the speech I had prepared:

The withdrawal from Gaza

In 2005 when Israeli PM Ariel Sharon oversaw Israeli withdrawal from every inch of the Gaza Strip, the overriding feeling in the world was one of hope and optimism. It was hoped that success in Gaza would lead to withdrawal from much of the West Bank.

Hamas takeover Gaza

Instead, over five years we have seen the Hamas coup in Gaza Strip, vanquishing moderate Palestinians. Gaza has become a terrorist stateb . Over 5,000 missiles have been fired into Israel since Hamas takeover in June 2007. Terrorists continue to infiltrate Israel from Gaza to execute brutal terror attacks. Weapons and explosives - supplied by backers Iran and Syria - are continuously smuggled into the Strip to be used against Israeli citizens and territory. This sort of situation is untenable. No country can be expected to live under this sort of pressure.

Perhaps this goes some way to explaining the reasons behind the blockade of the Gaza strip. Both Israel and Egypt – we must remember Egypt have a border with Gaza as well - have imposed a blockade on goods and materials coming in and out of the Gaza Strip.

Flotilla Incident

And so I come to the events of Monday 31 May.

The loss of life incurred during Israel’s raid on the flotilla bound for Gaza was without question deeply tragic. Any decent human being weeps for those who lost their lives or suffered injuries.

It must be noted that 5 of the 6 ships were peacefully intercepted and safely docked at the Israeli port of Ashdod without incident. Unfortunately, a significant minority of ‘activists’ on the Mavi Marmara reacted with extreme violence to the Israeli military personnel.

The ensuing violence was shocking and profoundly upsetting. A detailed inquiry into the events is needed, but it has become apparent that these ‘activists’ had prepared for violence by accruing various weapons, amongst which were knives and sharpened metal bars.

Security footage on the boat shows these men preparing their ambush and television images have shown these same individuals chanting horrific anti-Semitic songs. Before the incident, various spokesmen for the flotilla stressed that the intention was to make a political statement and “break the siege” rather than delivering the aid itself.

Behind this provocative political statement, was a Turkish fundamentalist organisation, known as IHH, which appears to have a record of supporting violence and terrorism.

Blockade on Gaza

Some colleagues focus on the Blockade, as the root of all difficulties. As so often, the reality on the ground is quite different.

Since January 2009, 0ne million tonnes of aid have reached Gaza from Israel. 15,000 tonnes of aid are delivered into Gaza, from Israel, every single week. I myself have visited the Kerem Shalom crossing point at the Israeli/Gaza border and witnessed hundreds of trucks of aid being delivered into the Strip.

We ought to be actively supporting Israel to stop the blockade. Rather than demanding that all borders are opened indiscriminately, we need to begin to understand the complexities of Israel’s predicament. Israel is straddling the line between humanitarian responsibility and very real national security concerns.
I ask the Minister what steps the British Government and the international community are taking to provide real solutions to the problem of smuggling into Gaza?

Hamas vs moderates

Some people are using recent events to attack not just Israel’s actions, but as a smokescreen to attack the philosophical underpinnings of Israel itself. This must be addressed.

Israel is a sovereign state, and has the right to defend itself.

We in the UK must not lose sight of the fact that to have any hope of peace in the Middle East we must continue to pressure Hamas to renounce terrorism and violence. Hamas need to know that the fundamental Quartet Principles remain rigidly in place. Would the Minister give assurances that the Government still holds this view and remains resolute on this issue?

The reality is that Israel, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and the West have a shared interest in preventing Hamas from being strengthened. Strengthening the PA and ensuring that a moderate national unity government is established in Gaza and the West Bank should be our focus.

It is encouraging that the Israeli and Palestinian delegations have continuing the proximity talks mediated by the United States. What steps are now being taken to bolster the government of President Mahmoud Abbas and PM Salam Fayyad?

Mr Speaker, Flotilla or nor Flotilla, blockade or no blockade, we must never forget that Israel, a democratic state, is battling for its survival against an enemy that seeks its destruction. The West faces the same enemy on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. A free and just Palestinian State and a secure Israel will only come about, when these terrorist movements have been vanquished, and when states like Iran and Syria, become the democracies that their peoples so richly deserve.

It was a good debate, with all sides of the argument represented. It showed the Commons at its best - debating an issue with great seriousness, and much thought. Although I was not called by Mr Speaker on this occasion, I was glad to be in the Chamber. The day reminded me that being an MP is about listening as well as much as talking.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Redressing the balance

I have just done a short interview on BBC 24 TV News, about the tragic events in the Middle East today. As always with such events, there has been somewhat of a one-sided view that has emanated from sections of the media.

Like any human being, I mourn the tragic loss of life and the injuries sustained by those on the ship - including the Israeli Navy Officers. I also believe that the Israeli authorities should ensure that the UK Foreign Office has full access to any British citizens caught up in the affair. An impartial independent inquiry will help to understand exactly what really occurred.

However, it is important to set out some important facts:

• The Israeli Navy offered the Flotilla the chance to unload in Ashdod, which was refused;
• When the Israeli navy boarded the ship, they were attacked by individuals with a range of weapons;
• The Flotilla was organised by the Islamist group IHH - a body that has close ties to extreme Islamists and is part of the global Jihad movement;
• A million tonnes of humanitarian supplies have entered Gaza from Israel from January 2009 to May 2010;
• Over the past two years Hamas have taken part in countless attacks on aid shipments into Gaza, including the hijacking of aid convoys for the use of Hamas fighters rather than Gaza citizens.
• Gaza's border includes Egypt as well as Israel. Egypt mounts a full blockade against Gaza not allowing any aid trucks through at all. Yet no one complains about this.
  
  

My final point is this: If a ship had entered British waters, insisted on docking anywhere, and had refused to stop, the British Navy would have boarded it in moments. This wasn't in Britain, but on the waters outside Gaza, which is governed by the Hamas Terrorist organisation. For years, Hamas have smuggled millions of dollars of weaponry (from Iran) into the Gaza strip to be used in attacks against Israel. Over 6,000 missiles have been fired from Gaza onto Israeli towns, since the unilateral Israeli withdrawal in 2004.

P.S. You can read more details HERE.

P.P.S. The pictures shows me with David Amess MP in the Israeli Town of Sderot (on the Gaza border) in 2009. We are holding the remains of missiles, fired from Gaza onto Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

From the frying pan into the fire

I have written this article for the Conservative Home website and thought you might like to see it:

Although I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for 'the Twitter Uprising', we should not get too carried away with the idea that Presidential Candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, is some kind of Ghandi type figure, about to bring unbridled freedom in Iran.

It is true, he supports some domestic reforms, and some relaxation of strict Islamist laws (all of which is welcome), but the question is, where does he stand on the fundamental issues?

The signs are that Mr Mousavi, would not be much different from what has gone on before. He helped create the feared Ministry of Intelligence and Information (which ruthlessly targets oppositionists). There is also a fair amount of evidence that he helped found Hezbollah and was on its leadership Council during the 1980s – including arranging funding. Unsurprisingly, Mr Mousavi has been a major proponent of calling for Hezbollah to be used as an attack force against Israel, and his views on Hamas are not thought to be much different.

It is worth remembering also Mr Mousavi, was Prime Minister of Iran during the purge of 1988, when many thousands of 'political' prisoners were killed, on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Mr Mousavi's term as Prime Minister saw renewed hostility towards America and his establishment of the Iranian chemical weapons programme. His government brought nuclear centrifuges on the 'open market' thus setting in train the nuclear armament programme that is close to completion today. I mention the above, not to put a dampener on the remarkable events in Iran, just to show that the outcome may not be quite what we wish for.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device