COMMUNICATIONS WITH ISRAEL (Hansard, 16 June 1955)

§ Mr. William Teeling (Brighton, Pavilion)

During the last few days we have been discussing foreign affairs, among other things, and Israel has come very much to the fore in these debates, especially yesterday. I do not want to enlarge on that point beyond saying that after reading today's HANSARD all those who, like myself, have recently been in Israel feel that this House must now understand that the people there are rather suspicious of whether we are not too much influenced by the Arab countries around it.

There is one particular point, the question of communications with Israel, in which, I believe, the Israeli Press is actually wrong in thinking that there is too much Arab influence. That is why I want to concentrate this evening on the matter of communications with Israel and of B.O.A.C. flights to that country, in particular.

However, I should like to refer to other obvious means of communication, including that of getting across the boarder from Jordan and other adjacent countries. Those are points which, on another occasion, should be discussed. It is not very easy to deal with the whole question in an Adjournment debate like this, because it is not customary to ask for more than a Minister to reply. Therefore, even if I mention one or two other points, the only one to which I can 898 expect an answer is the question of the air transport to Israel, as that is all that the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation can answer.

As I have said, however, there is the question of contact with Israel from Jordan and Egypt, and not only from land sources, but also by sea. On another occasion I should like to talk about the communications from the point of view of tourists. There are not only Jewish tourists who want to go to Israel, but there are also Christian tourists, to whom Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, and so on, mean a great deal. At the moment, one cannot go to Nazareth and Jerusalem, or go to the whole of Jerusalem and on to Bethlehem, and come back again, because of the problems of the borders. These are things that one day ought to be studied from the point of view of the Christian who wants to travel there.

Then there is the question of broadcasting to that country. That is also a form of communication which should be dealt with at some other time. I should like only to say that while I and three or four other Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, were recently in Israel, at the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) resigned the Premiership, it was very interesting and touching to see how much he was beloved in Israel and the great interest that was taken in the announcement of his resignation.

I can truly say that Israel was happy and pleased that its Prime Minister was asked to take part in the broadcast tribute made by Prime Ministers to what my right hon. Friend had done for the world as a whole. It was not uninteresting to find that at that time it was said widely—and, I believe, it is still felt—that it was the great hope of the people of Israel that one day my right hon. Friend would feel it possible to visit Israel, a country in which he is known to be very interested.

There is one point that I might fairly ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to answer outside his office. It is such a small point that one cannot normally raise it on an Adjournment. I refer to the question of communications by telephone with Israel. Israel is fast developing from a business point of 899 view, and much business has to be dealt with from this country. When one looks into the question of telephonic communications, one finds that the only times for telephoning from this country to Israel are from 11.30 in the morning to 1.15, or from 4.30 in the afternoon to 6.30. If we add two hours to convert to Israeli time, we find that telephone calls can be put through to Israel at 1.30, just when everybody has gone to lunch, continuing to 3.15, when people are just finishing their siesta. Later, one can have telephone calls at 6.30, when the Israelis are just about to go home, until 8.30, when they are in the middle of their dinner. Those are the hours which are used on week-days, including Saturdays.

Our Post Office people have, perhaps, forgotten that the Jewish Saturday is the equivalent of our Sunday, but on Israel's first day of the week—Sunday, which is the equivalent of our Monday—the Sunday service allows only half that time to make calls. They are confined simply to the luncheon siesta interval on Israel's first day of the week, when the Israelis are probably getting down to business for the coming week. I do not know whether that has been realised over here but it might be a point that could be discussed and, possibly, an alteration made.

Another thing which we must remember is the difficulty of getting the necessaries for industry to Israel, and one is a question of oil. There is the pipeline to Haifa, which is now closed. The possibility of going by the Suez Canal is also stopped, so we have Israel, within about 200 miles of some of the richest oilfields in the world, having to get its oil from Venezuela. There is also the fact that, in spite of all this, Israel has become a very great industrial area and is fast developing. If that is so, and if, as I believe, a great deal of it is due to contacts with this country and with the Commonwealth, we must make certain that the United Kingdom keeps in close touch with Israel.

The most modern and the most obvious means is by air, and it was with great regret that the few of us who were out there and many other people here heard that B.O.A.C. had decided to close its airline from the end of April. I refer to the direct airline between this country and Israel. Immediately, one saw in the Israeli papers, and I found in discussing 900 it with people there, the feeling that this was probably due to Arab pressure. Not only was it said that we were closing down the B.O.A.C. airline to Lydda, but the reason given for doing this was a lack of aircraft or a lack of equipment. Yet, at the same time, we were stepping up the airline and the number of aircraft used to Beirut.

If it is possible, I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to explain why it was that we were stepping up our communications with Beirut at a time when we said it was impossible to carry on the service to Lydda. As far as I can see myself, there was justification for that, because it is the case at the moment, as most hon. Members will know, that due to the Arab pressure and the boycott by the Arabs, it is not possible for aircraft going to Israel to fly on to other parts of the Arab world.

Therefore, B.O.A.C., which, we must remember, is a world-wide organisation, which does not include the area covered by B.E.A., but only flies over it, makes the first landing in Israel. If that is to be a terminal, it is obviously not going to be very practical from the business point of view to send the most modern aircraft there, because they cannot go any further. I think that that is now understood by most people in Israel, and it is the headache of B.O.A.C. As far as I can see, from making inquiries, B.O.A.C. very definitely want, if they can, to have an efficient line going to Lydda, but from the economic point of view, they must let it go further.

Of course, my hon. Friend cannot answer for business companies doing business work on these lines, but he can tell us a little more about the matter from the political aspect. From the business point of view, one can well understand B.O.A.C. saying that, if it is only business, they cannot really countenance this airline continuing only as far as Lydda. What are the possibilities of it being continued further? At present, there is the whole Far Eastern field, and we have to realise that we have a modern community in Israel and people who want to travel on—people who not only go to Israel from Europe, but very often who want to go still further. Indeed, there are Israelis themselves who would go from there into the Far East.

901 I therefore ask why it is not possible to extend the route to Teheran. Why should it not be possible to extend the route to Teheran, whither it went in the old days? As far as I know there is nothing to stop one's going round the coast and so not passing over Arab territory, and the extra distance is not great. If it were possible to extend the line to Teheran it would be possible to fly on to the Far East, a great market with which Israel at the moment has no special contact. As I understand, the Israeli Government and E1-A1, the Israeli line, are more than willing to co-operate with us.

There is yet another prospect, and that is to fly on to South Africa. While I was in Israel I was immensely impressed by the advances being made by the settlements organised by the South Africans in Israel, and by the number of Jews I met who had come from South Africa, rich Jews who were visiting Israel as tourists, or for religious purposes, or on business. I believe that there is a tremendous outlet there. At present, B.O.A.C. has about five different routes going that way which all go through Cairo. Surely, one of them could be switched to go to Tel Aviv and Lydda and on from there to Nairobi and so to South Africa. This, I think, would be a possibility, and perhaps an excuse for B.O.A.C. to send on their best aircraft for Lydda.

Now, of course, there is nothing there at all. Up to two months ago B.O.A.C. was not putting on the best service because it was not economic. As a result of its not being economic, so that the best service was not put on, rival lines came in with better services—K.L.M., and so on, and people did not want to use B.O.A.C. Many rich people in London go constantly on business to Israel, and they find it easier to fly over the Continent, change aircraft, go on in complete comfort to Israel, and do the journey two hours more quickly than if they went by B.O.A.C. Yet everyone wants, if at all possible, to go by a British line.

Then there is the question of getting one's money out of Israel if one makes a profit there. Obviously, that is a question to be discussed from a business point of view mainly. However, I think it fair to say that the Israeli Government have probably made agreements with all the other different lines already, so that it is 902 not easy for them to do anything fresh about the present arrangements; but if by any chance B.O.A.C. were able to extend a service beyond Lydda I think it would be quite likely that the Israeli Government would be prepared—and could—make new agreements, and make it possible to satisfy any B.O.A.C. request.

There are other lines at present which are rubbing their hands because B.O.A.C. has gone out, because to them is going the extra business—K.L.M., the French line, the Italian, and so on. Whatever offers have already been made to them by the Israeli Government could also go to B.O.A.C., and the same advantages that they give to one or two of those other lines. In other words, B.O.A.C. could pool services with E1-A1, and pool various bookings.

America, of course, is one of the main sources from which to draw people who want to go to Israel. Today, because B.O.A.C. has gone out of the market, there are some five lines going to or from America to Tel Aviv. Of those, all four that are run by foreign countries, the Italian, the French, K.L.M. and T.W.A., now go via Paris and do not contact London at all. The only one that does is El-Al, the Israeli line itself.

B.O.A.C. has for a long time been trying to get American Jewry who are visiting Israel to go via Britain. From our own tourist point of view, as from every other business point of view, it could be a great and serious loss to us that we are not getting this market. We are told that all this may possibly develop in the future, but one of the reasons why I brought up this subject tonight is because I feel that there is not the urgency about it which there ought to be. We should be doing this much more quickly. The very fact of the closing down has caused a lot of unhappiness. Nothing much has happened since. There have been discussions, but we are in the position that we are losing this market to the outside world.

The alternative to B.O.A.C. even if only temporary is B.E.A. which goes as far as Cyprus. Could not they go on to Lydda until such time as Lydda ceases to be a terminus and becomes just a transit airport? It is uncertain whether this could be done, but I believe that it could. I should like to appeal to B.E.A. to do something about it.

903 Having travelled the route myself, I know that one goes by an extremely comfortable line, by Viscount, to Nicosia in Cyprus. Then one has to transfer into a DC-3 which is usually—certainly, when I travelled—absolutely packed out; with luggage at the front and at the back to keep a balance; and with a man trying to serve some kind of a meal in boiling heat on board and in one's lap. Finally, after what seems a lengthy period, one reaches Lydda.

That is not good enough in these days, when we have direct services by K.L.M. and by the American lines and others. It is time that we had Viscounts as well to go on, without changing aircraft, and I believe that B.E.A. could probably do that. We must realise that Cyprus is, to a certain extent, on its own in this matter, and that, therefore, the "powers that be," the Governor and others, must be consulted before anything can be done. But I beg that something be done with haste in this matter. At first, B.E.A. felt that they would be used as a stop gap, but I do not think that they feel that any longer. They feel now that they could help in this matter, and on this particular point.

I wish to make one final appeal, the appeal which can be made by those interested in the future linking up of our two countries. Since 1948 the population of Israel has increased from between 400,000 and 500,000 to about 1½ million. A large number of those people are connected with this country, and still more with the Commonwealth. I found a growing tendency on the part of the Government and others to get as close a contact with the British Commonwealth as possible, and a keen desire to link up with this country, both from the sterling point of view and the trade point of view. They do not wish to link so much with America as with this country. If something could be done quickly to make sure that we have these lines working, I believe that it would be of the greatest assistance.

There is a feeling in Israel that there is some Arab pressure, and I hope that I have been able to make it clear that that is not the case. It is the question of a sheer business proposition. If something soon could be arranged, we should be working on a much happier basis. It was said to me by a prominent 904 Israeli that they want friendship with this country, not only by words but by communications. The most modern and up-to-date means of communication are air communications. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend to do everything in his power with those concerned to try to hurry on this matter, which is one of real urgency, and to make it possible for us to be linked together once again.