Middle East Peace Plan

The Government welcomes the US proposal for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, urging leaders to give it fair consideration. The UK supports substantive negotiations leading to a safe Israel and viable Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with land swaps and mutual recognition of Jerusalem as the shared capital.

Supports getting peace talks going, noting that five Arab countries have welcomed the proposal. Calls for UK's help in facilitating talks between Palestinians and Israel to deliver peace.

Agrees with Labour stance; criticises plan as not a basis for peace. Questions Government's response, asking if undue pressure is being applied on Palestinian Authority and what measures are in place against illegal annexation.

Inquires about conversations with UN partners regarding the proposed peace plan.

Critiques Minister for taking an intellectually dishonest stance, endorsing a plan that facilitates illegal annexation while claiming to be against it. Urges Government to uphold historical responsibility towards Palestine.

Mr. Murrison argues that while the US peace plan proposal is not perfect, it represents a potential step towards negotiation and should be welcomed as part of a process to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He emphasises that the document's release marks a start but does not constitute an agreement or settlement. Mr. Murrison cites international support for this view.

Mr. Courts asks if the Minister agrees that these proposals should be given fair consideration as a step towards negotiations and an acceptable agreement.

Ms. Moran calls the proposal a scam, criticising it for ignoring Palestinian rights and not being part of a viable two-state solution as per the UK's long-standing position. She questions why those supporting the international rules-based order would suggest rejecting this plan.

Mr. Blunt criticises the proposal for ignoring Palestinians’ right to self-determination, 1967 borders, international humanitarian law, and UN resolutions. He describes it as an annexation plan.

Ms. Elliott argues that the plan is wrong, taking 60% of Palestinian land and not leading to peace or providing rights over security, borders, or water for Palestinians. She calls for a true plan for a two-state solution.

Mr. Jones questions if the Government has communicated its position on not acquiescing in the illegal annexation of land to the American Government.

Mr. Newlands expresses regret at Mr. Murrison’s criticism of a British Palestinian MP and urges the Government to stand up against the US plan, describing it as disastrous and self-serving.

Mr. Benn urges the Government to have courage and support its long-standing policy on the essential elements of a peace plan for the Middle East, arguing that this proposal fails several tests.

Ms. Kearns inquires about continued UK calls to end actions undermining the viability of a two-state solution and seeks assurance on investing in track 2 negotiations for meaningful progress.

Ms. Blake asks whether a planned summit of European and Arab Foreign Ministers with the Trump Administration ever took place, aiming to set out red lines for the peace plan.

The plan has been published and reactions are supportive from the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Jordan. The Government welcomes the publication of the plan but does not endorse it as their own.

Calls for condemnation of antisemitism in all forms both within the UK and globally, particularly when it is disguised as anti-Zionism.

Welcomes the potential for a peace plan but asks what assistance will be provided to persecuted Christians in the Middle East under the proposed settlement.

Notes that the US peace plan recognises historical injustice against Jewish refugees, including those expelled from Arab lands, and urges the Government to welcome this recognition.

Views the proposed deal as an annexation plan rather than a peace agreement and questions what actions the UK will take if such annexation goes ahead, demanding adherence to international law.

Asks for confirmation that the UK Government's position remains that all existing and future Israeli settlements in occupied territories are illegal under international law.

Claims that the plan is a significant step away from necessary talks, arguing it legitimises illegal settlements which undermine the viability of a Palestinian state, thus destroying hope for just peace. Urges an unambiguous rejection of the plan.

Compliments the measured tone of his right hon friend's statement and highlights that while this is not a final outcome, it serves as a proposal to facilitate progress towards a two-state solution.

Expresses disappointment with the welcome shown by the Government for the plan and questions its legitimacy under international law.

Stresses that legitimising Palestinian land annexation breaches international law and UN resolutions, questioning why the Government does not condemn it explicitly.

Questions the viability of a two-state solution in light of current conditions such as no control over East Jerusalem for Palestinians and illegal settlements under Oslo accords.

Critiques the unilateral setting of terms favourable to one side without participation from the other, suggesting it undermines true negotiation.

Argues that progress necessitates acceptance of realities on the ground where Israeli Governments will not agree to division of Jerusalem or withdrawal from settlement blocs, urging cautious welcome for talks based on this plan.

Warns against hypocrisy in welcoming but not endorsing the peace plan, suggesting it could erode trust necessary for a successful resolution to the conflict.

Praises the potential of this US intervention as a catalyst for talks and discussions, encouraging Arab states to support Palestinian leadership engaging in talks for peace.

The Minister emphasised the need for both parties to Israel-Palestinian dispute to negotiate and agreed that settlement expansion and demolition of Palestinian property undermines peace. He also highlighted the importance of political agreement before international investment can be effective.

Ferrier criticised the proposal as fundamentally unserious and urged for Palestinian diplomats to be included in discussions about their future peace settlement.

Jupp asked the Minister to confirm that demolition of property and expansion of settlements is undermining the peace process, to which Murrison agreed and condemned such behavior.

Betts argued that land swaps based on 1967 borders are crucial for a successful peace plan and criticised the map proposed for a Palestinian entity as unsustainable.

Bell questioned whether investment in a new Palestinian entity could bring peace, to which Murrison responded that political opening is needed first before significant financial support can be effective.

Buck expressed doubt about the context of any negotiation and challenged the feasibility of an independent state based on non-contiguous lands without control over its coastal waters or airspace.

Murray pushed for a clear stance from Britain that it abides by all international laws and UN resolutions condemning the annexation of Palestinian land and building settlements as illegal.

Johnson questioned how a plan could be well-thought-through without involving Palestinians in its creation, expressing scepticism about the legitimacy of such a process.

Efford argued that welcoming a plan not supported by Palestinians is ineffective and urged Britain to convey to the US that this plan has no prospect of success, thus reinforcing existing policy.

Reynolds criticised the plan for offering no concessions to Palestinians and warned it could prolong conflict by promoting violence as the only solution. He urged Britain to assert its own national interest.

Debbonaire raised concerns about the water crisis in occupied territories being exacerbated by the proposed plan, prompting Murrison to acknowledge the importance of addressing water issues in any negotiations.