§ Q9. Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister what Government decisions have been taken to enable the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain British policy on the Middle East at the United Nations Assembly.
§ The Prime MinisterThe House will by this time have read reports of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech at the General Assembly of the United Nations yesterday. I am placing a full text of the speech in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was expressing certain principles, drawn from the Charter of the United Nations, on which our general approach to a solution of the Arab-Israel conflict is based. He was not, of course, attempting to put forward any detailed proposals for an eventual settlement.
§ Mr. ShinwellBut is my right hon. Friend aware that what the Foreign Secretary did at the United Nations Assembly was to indulge in a sustained criticism of the Israeli Government, including threats if the Israeli Government failed to carry out a certain policy? Was he representing the policy of the Government, and, if so, was he taking sides 1950 for the first time? Was he representing the declared view of right hon. and hon. Members in this Assembly?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend was representing the policy of the Government. He was not taking sides. It is my view—and my right hon. Friend's Question has confirmed this—that there has been some misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what my right hon. Friend said. What he was trying to do, and what he said, was to lay down the principle that all the matters to which he referred were for decision in the eventual settlement. When he referred to Israel on this particular point, he was warning Israel—
§ Mr. ShinwellWarning?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, warning Israel against taking any immediate unilateral action, for example, formal annexation of a quasi-legal character or by legislation to harden and make permanent their grip on the territory which they had captured. He felt, and I should have thought that the House would feel, that if this were done it would prejudice the prospects of a satisfactory all-round settlement at which we should all be aiming and which could have very great advantage for Israel as well as for other countries.
§ Mr. HeathBut the Foreign Secretary's use of the phrase that there must be no "territorial aggrandisement" of any kind following the recent conflict has been widely interpreted, certainly in this country, as meaning that Israel must go back exactly to the status quo before the recent conflict. Would not the Foreign Secretary be better advised to continue to urge that there should be negotiations between the two sides to achieve a reasonable and permanent settlement which would provide security for Israel as well as a peaceful, prosperous existence for the Arab countries?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. He was, of course, pressing for negotiations—and when the text of the whole speech and not parts of it have been reported this will be clear—not necessarily between the two sides. This would be valuable if it could be achieved; it might not be realistic. There are other possibilities, including four-Power talks and discussions at the United Nations. But my right hon. 1951 Friend's reference to "territorial aggrandisement" in his speech was a warning against the idea that boundaries could be settled just by military action. The boundaries have to be settled by an all-out settlement. This settlement could be of the greatest value in giving security all round if, for example, as it most certainly should—[Interruption.]—this is a very serious question and hon. Members should treat it with the seriousness which it deserves—if, for example, such a settlement as most of us have urged in the House were to include for the first time recognition of the right of Israel to her existence, security through international waterways for her goods as well as, of course, dealing with some of the security anxieties both ways and with the problem of refugees. This is a very valuable prize. Nothing should be done short term to make it more difficult.
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanDoes my right hon. Friend still subscribe to the policy of not supplying arms to the Middle East at all? If he does, how does he reconcile that with the proceedings between President Nasser and the President of the Soviet Union in Cairo yesterday?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my right hon. Friend made clear to the House before he went to New York, while we did have a temporary embargo to all parties, while we were inquiring whether other countries would do the same, the fact that we could not get assurances of this kind, for example, from the Soviet Union, led us to end the embargo and to resume our previous practice and judge each case on its merits.
§ Mr. ThorpeSince the Government have attached some moral significance to remaining neutral in what many regard as a highly controversial issue, may we know why the Foreign Secretary made his remark about "territorial aggrandisement" at a time when Russia continues to supply arms to the Egyptians and when no Arab State has agreed to negotiate with the Israeli Government? Are we to take it that this is a new definition of "neutral" which is more neutral to one side than to the other?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not accept that for a moment. I believe, as many hon. Members believe, that we shall not get a settlement advantageous to Israel 1952 if it is asserted that whatever has been seized in the war should automatically become part of the permanent frontiers. Israel and everyone in the Middle East have a lot more to gain from a settlement in which these matters are settled by negotiation. My right hon. Friend felt that it was right to say this because of the immediate danger of the chance of such a settlement being prejudiced by action such as legislation in the Knesset incorporating certain territories on a legal, although challengeable legal, basis into the territory of Israel.
§ Mr. PagetMay I ask my right hon. Friend three questions? First, do we recognise that a state of war exists between Israel and the Arab nations? Secondly, if that be so, is not the supply of arms to the belligerents a clear breach of neutrality? Thirdly, does not a breach of neutrality of that sort justify an end to the cease-fire?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that it would be helpful if I were to try to answer those questions, because they all proceed from the first question about the legal status as to whether there is a state of war or not. Before getting into that very difficult field, I should like notice of the question and indeed to have it put either to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or to the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that it would be right to rush into these very difficult matters, because it might cause further difficulty.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe Foreign Secretary seems to have tried to define in New York the frontiers which Israel should observe in future as a result of the war. Is not that very unwise? It may be, as the Prime Minister said, that the Foreign Secretary did not mean to say this. Therefore, may we have the full text of his speech placed in the Library so that we may judge and return to these matters in future?
§ The Prime MinisterI confirm what I said in my main Answer. I am placing the full text of the speech in the Library. The right hon. Gentleman is right that one should study the full speech. But my right hon. Friend was not attempting to define the frontiers, the boundaries, the borders of these States. These must be matters for an international settlement. He was saying that they cannot be just 1953 unilaterally declared as a result of the fighting, but that there must be discussions, and he was wanting to make proposals which would help to get a solution by avoiding further unilateral action at this time.
§ Sir B. JannerDoes my right hon. Friend realise that the manner in which the speech was made at the United Nations indicated that an attempt would be made to deal with Jerusalem alone first and that the speech has deeply shocked everybody, particularly in view of the fact that for the first time in 19 years members of all religions are able to practise in their Holy Places? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that Israel is the only nation which so far has been and is able to make that possible in the Holy City?
§ The Prime MinisterI can assure my hon. Friend that in New York my right hon. Friend, neither by what he said nor by the manner in which he said it, tried to lay down from Britain's point of view, still less internationally, what the future status of Jerusalem should be. What he was saying was that the Israel Government should not undertake unilateral action now by legislating for the annexation of the Old City of Jerusalem. He was not prejudging, any final settlement. I certainly take, as most hon. Members will, what my hon. Friend says about opening up all the Holy Places of three religions for those who adhere to them. This is an extremely important and historic development. Certainly it is of fundamental importance. But proposals which one knows were going on for immediate legislation on the Old City might have prejudiced a final settlement, created much more bitterness and made a reasonable final settlement much more difficult.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory reply, and in the absence of an early debate, I give notice that I propose to raise the matter of the Foreign Secretary's speech at the United Nations at an early date.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are ten minutes past Question Time.