ISRAEL AND EGYPT (Hansard, 24 November 1955)

§ 46. Mr. Zilliacus
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government's services as a mediator are at the disposal of Israel and Egypt only on the basis of strict respect for the obligations of Article 2, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the United Nations Charter.

§ 48. Mr. Shinwell
asked the Prime Minister what steps he took to ascertain the views of the Israeli Government Government before he made his official proposal at the Guildhall that one of the conditions of a settlement should be a withdrawal from territory now occupied by Israel.

§ The Prime Minister
I did not consult either the Israeli or the Arab Governments concerned before I made my speech at the Guildhall on 9th November.
I took this opportunity of advising both sides that if they want peace, they must make some compromise between the position they have taken up. I did not attempt to lay down where and how that compromise should be found, nor do I propose to do so now.
I am, however, convinced that a settlement would be so valuable to both sides that they would find that any concessions they made would be more than worth while. I have given the assurance that if our services are required in the negotiations, both Her Majesty's Government and I personally are very ready to offer them in the cause of peace. It goes without saying that Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the United Nations, will at all times have due regard to the provisions of the Charter.

§ Mr. Zilliacus
While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, I would ask him whether this means that any attempt by the Arab States to use the threat of force to extract territorial concessions from Israel will be objected to and opposed by the Government as being contrary to the obligations of the Charter quoted in the Question.

§ The Prime Minister
I really do not think that that is in the spirit of what we have been trying to do. The only hope of a settlement here is that there should be an abandonment of the threat of force, and some attempt to talk to one another. I know that these countries will not talk to each other directly. Therefore, the only hope is for some other country to try to do some of that for them. I should, perhaps, add that, though I do not at all want to bind our American friends to every word of what I said at the Guildhall, it is a fact that we and the United States Government are in very close agreement in this difficult business.

§ Mr. Shinwell
While everybody agrees that a settlement of this deplorable affair is desirable—there is no question about that—does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the statement he made at the Guildhall, whatever his intentions may have been, has created a profound depression in the State of Israel, and has apparently played into the hands of some of 1650 the Arabian countries which are still intransigent? Apart from the merits of the case, as the right hon. Gentleman has now indicated the readiness of the Government, probably in co-operation with the United States Government, or without the co-operation of that Government, to offer mediation, do I understand that that means that the Government will now directly offer mediation to Israel and to Egypt? In the event of either country refusing to enter into conference, what action do the Government propose to take?

§ The Prime Minister
I really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's line would be the least helpful. What I have said is that we will do what we can, and so will the United States Government, to try to bring about an arrangement, and we have been doing so, as the House knows quite well, for some considerable time past. We propose to continue those efforts. I do not accept that what I said at the Guildhall was so exceptional as to call forth the right hon. Gentleman's comments.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Is the Prime Minister not aware that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has said, his speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet has undoubtedly caused very great alarm and apprehension—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think hon. Gentlemen might wait—in Israel. If they are denying that, they are denying something which is obviously true. Was not an implication of the speech that there would be very substantial concessions of territory by Israel, which is exceedingly small? Can the Prime Minister say whether the Government still adhere firmly to the spirit and the letter of the Tripartite Declaration?

§ The Prime Minister
I did not use the phrase "very substantial concessions of territory," and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, I know, wants to be fair in this matter, to look at the words I used, which were very carefully chosen indeed. As to the second part of his supplementary question, certainly we abide by the terms of the Tripartite Declaration. As we are going to debate these matters, I understand, shortly, I shall certainly be willing to give any further answers that are required.

§ Mr. C. Davies
Has the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion whatever to make either for separate action, or in conjunction with the United States of America and with France, to try to put an end to this very anxious situation? We are all in a state of anxiety about it.

§ The Prime Minister
I chink that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands better than most people that if we have suggestions to make—detailed suggestions, I mean—of any sort or kind it would not be very helpful to put them out in this House at this time.

§ Mr. Robens
May I ask the Prime Minister what was the real purpose of his Guildhall speech? If it was to act as mediator, surely notes to the Governments concerned would have done that. Instead of that, the Prime Minister threw into the arena a concession on territory which applied to one side only. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that he ought to clear this matter up and say precisely what was in his mind about territorial concession?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. I am sorry, but I have not the slightest intention of doing anything such as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. I must correct him when he says that I asked for concessions from one side only. It is only necessary to read my speech to see quite clearly that I asked for concessions from both. The right hon. Gentleman can argue that the territorial concession, to his mind, asks more of Israel than of the Arabs. He may think that, but that does not alter the fact that other people will have to make very considerable concessions if there is to be agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Do not hon. Members know? Have they never heard of the refugees and the problem in that connection? Have they never heard of the abandonment of any hope of the Arabs 1652 ever returning to their homes, of the blockade and of non-recognition of Israel? These are the kind of things that are on everybody's minds and I am not prepared to go any further than the words which I carefully chose in my speech.

§ Mr. Strachey
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that his words were construed, rightly or wrongly, in the Middle East as implying that Israel should contemplate a settlement which involved giving up half her territory? If this was a misconstruction of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as I am prepared to believe that it was, surely by a word he can put that straight this afternoon.

§ The Prime Minister
I think that I have given the House all the commentary that I should give. I made that speech after very careful consideration and with the full knowledge of my responsibilities, and I do not withdraw one single word of it.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Would the Prime Minister explain the purpose of his reference to the United Nations Resolutions of 1947, which are clearly inapplicable and out-of-date? What was the purpose of it if it was not an implication that Israel would suffer a substantial loss of territory? I do not want to be unfair, I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant.

§ The Prime Minister
I gave what I thought was an objective and fair account of where the two parties stood, and the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the Foreign Office, will know exactly where they still stand now.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, in the absence of a debate on this subject before the Christmas Recess, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.