MIDDLE EAST (Hansard, 16 October 1973)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.
The whole House will share the Government's profound anxiety and disquiet that the long dispute between the Arab countries and Israel should once more have flared into a further round of bitter warfare. The fighting which began on Saturday afternoon, 6th October, is still continuing and there have been many hard battles and a high rate of casualties. The Government especially deplore the loss of innocent civilian life which has occurred and we call upon all the Governments engaged in the war to do everything within their power to avoid civilian casualties.
I regret to have to inform the House that one British citizen, Mrs. Burak, is believed to have died in the bombing of Damascus. We know of no other British casualties. Her Majesty's Ambasador at Damascus advised members of the small British community there to leave on 12th October. Our Ambasasdors in the other countries involved in the conflict are in close touch with the British communities. We have not so far thought it necessary to advise further evacuation. But we have advised all British subjects to keep clear of the war zone.
When the hostilities broke out, Her Majesty's Government called for an immediate cease-fire, and suspended all shipments of arms to the battlefield. We did this because we considered it inconsistent to call for an immediate end to the fighting and yet to continue to send arms to the conflict. This seems to me to be the best posture from which to make an effective contribution to a constructive settlement. As regards the effect of the embargo we have supplied a limited number of arms to both sides in recent years. Whereas in 1967 an embargo would have discriminated against Israel it is now even-handed. I would like to add here that British military facilities overseas have not been and are not being used for the transit of military supplies to the battlefield.
31 We also sought to bring the Security Council into action at once but neither side was willing to contemplate a ceasefire, except on terms totally unacceptable to the other. The Security Council has met several times but has been unable to find a consensus on any action.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore been engaged in consultation with other Governments with the twin objectives of bringing about an end to the fighting and ensuring that urgent steps are at last taken to implement in full Security Council Resolution 242. The nine countries of the European Community joined in issuing an appeal to this effect on 13th October. Resolution 242 still offers the best chance of a settlement because to it and it alone both Arabs and Israelis subscribe.
Three years ago at Harrogate I put forward our suggestions about how Resolution 242 might be put into effect. I outlined how a permanent settlement of the boundary question might be reached which could satisfy both the demand of the Arab States for Israeli withdrawal and the equally legitimate demand of Israel, which we all support, for recognition within secure boundaries.
Clearly no settlement can be imposed. But unless the future is merely to be a repetition of the futile and dangerous confrontation of the past a new effort at conciliation must be made.
I feel that the ingredients of a settlement will have to include action by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the introduction of an international force first to police a cease-fire and then to guarantee the terms of a settlement. It will be necessary too, I believe, to establish demilitarised zones.
The success of any initiative must depend on the state of the battle. Timing will therefore be all important. We are ready to play our part in the making of peace and the keeping of it, so vital is it to the whole world that peace should be re-established in this area.
We will do our best to turn what appears to be a disaster now into an opportunity for securing a permanent settlement in the Middle East. I will of course keep the House regularly informed of developments.

§ Mr. Callaghan
While joining the Foreign Secretary in expressing regret 32 about the death of Mrs. Burak and being relieved that no other British citizens have been involved or killed, may we express our regret about the deaths and casualties on both sides in a conflict which has such potential dangers for the rest of the world?
I think that the major criticism being made of Her Majesty's Government at the moment concerns this question of the arms embargo and whether it is evenhanded. The Government say that their intention is that it should be. But will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this question of the supply of arms? I think that it is basically a matter of ammunition for the Centurion tanks, and it may be spare parts as well, although my information is that basically it is ammunition. Is it the case that the Israelis had a shipment ready to go before the battle broke out, that it was delayed purely on the technical ground that another consignment would be ready within a few days and that the battle started between those two dates? If that is so and if the Government wish to be even-handed, ought not they to allow this consignment of ammunition, and possibly the spare parts as well, to go to Israel in order to preserve the neutral position which they say they intend to adopt?
As for the ingredients of a settlement, I agree with those that the Foreign Secretary put forward. But may I add two others? Is not it also necessary for the ingredients to include direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Arabs and, secondly, provision for a settlement, as a result of discussions, between Israel and representatives of the Palestinian Arabs who are refugees if we are to get a permanent settlement in the Middle East? Does not the present conflict show that boundaries are perhaps less important than confidence and trust in this matter and that that is the only way, together with international boundaries, in which we shall get a settlement?
Fourthly, we shall certainly support the Foreign Secretary if he continues to use the United Nations, however unpromising the Security Council may appear at the moment, in an attempt to get a settlement. We are also very happy if the right hon. Gentleman continues direct discussions with other countries to make sure, if possible, that a cease-fire is 33 brought about. I understand from a report which I heard on the wireless that there is to be a debate on this subject. In that debate I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us more about the attitudes of the United States and the USSR to the supply of arms. As I understand it, both appear reluctant to be dragged into the conflict. But if it escalates it will represent the most serious danger of world conflict that we have had for many years.
The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the problem of oil supplies. I hope that he will make it clear to anyone who is using such threats that we are not likely to be intimidated by threats of dislocation to our oil supplies and that such threats will not cause us to change a policy which we believe to be right. That would be monstrous. If we were to pay such a price now we would merely find that the price escalated on a second occasion. If that suggestion is ever put forward, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will deal with it summarily despite the dislocation that it might cause.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has one advantage over me in that I did not hear on the wireless that there was to be a debate. I shall be very happy to take part in one whenever it is arranged.
On the right hon. Gentleman's point about the arms embargo and whether it is even-handed, I agree that this is what is causing quite a lot of anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman knows that no Government ever disclose what the sales of arms are. I have gone into this matter with meticulous care. It can be fairly described as "even-handed". There were items, for example, for which both Israel and Egypt had already paid, but they had not been shipped, and a difference was made between those on the sea and those which had not left these shores. That seemed to be the only line that we could draw. It is a difficult problem, as the House will understand.
I am not giving away any secrets when I say that we supply Centurion tanks and ammunition to Jordan as well as to Israel. Does it make sense, when a war has broken out, to go on supplying both countries so that the war will escalate? I will, of course, keep this whole matter 34 under review as the war proceeds. However, I am sure that the embargo provides us with the best posture for a peacemaking effort. That is what matters. The war should be stopped. There should be a cease-fire and we should get down to negotiations about a settlement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there must not be direct contacts. This has been the weakness in the situation all the time. There have been no direct talks between Israel and Egypt, except under the chairmanship of Dr. Jarring, but those talks broke down, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember very well. They may get back into direct talks, but I do not think that they will be able to come to an agreement without assistance. We must therefore stand by to give assistance.
As to the Soviet Union and the United States, there is a massive airlift operation on both sides.
Finally, I hope that there will be no threats of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman suggested might be made about oil. There have been no threats so far, and I hope that they will not be made. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about them.

§ Mr. Walters
While entirely accepting what my right hon. Friend said about the timing of any United Nations intervention being absolutely crucial—and he alone can decide it—may I ask whether he agrees that it is a manifest British and Western interest at the present time not to allow the Arab countries to feel that they have only the Soviet Union to which to turn for either military or political help?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
This was one of the reasons why we have taken so much trouble in recent years to get closer to Egypt and other Arab countries. We have succeeded in doing this by not taking sides—I emphasise "not taking sides"—and assuring them that there is some alternative to total reliance on the Soviet Union.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that for any lasting settlement we must at least establish the facts? Does his information confirm that of United Nations' observers that this war was unleashed by two Arab States against the State of Israel?
35 Secondly, if that be the case, does it not underscore the point he made that any settlement must ensure that Israel has frontiers which will secure her as far as possible against further attack?
Thirdly, on the question of arms—this is perhaps a matter that we can go into in greater detail in the debate, and since I have an efficient Whip I, at least, knew that the debate was to be on Thursday next—may I ask whether, when our salesmen—after all, we had a Government super-salesman appointed by the last Government—sold arms to Israel for her self-defence, it was made perfectly clear that if she ever had to use those weapons for her own self-defence she would be denied the spare parts to make them effective? Since we are talking about even-handed shipments to the battlefield, is it not a fact that we are currently training helicopter pilots for the Egyptians, that we are about to send tanks to Dubai, which has not disclaimed an interest in the war, and are agreeing that we shall continue with shipments, albeit in the future, of planes to Saudi Arabia? What sort of neutrality is that?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I will begin with the right hon. Gentleman's last two questions because I think that I can satisfy the House on those matters.
It is true that we are training certain Egyptian helicopter pilots. They are already qualified pilots who are being trained in the use of a new helicopter. But nobody need be afraid that they will use that new helicopter in the war because it would not be exported under the embargo. Therefore, the question is whether the pilots return to Egypt now or in six or seven weeks when their course is completed.
Regarding the tanks being supplied to Dubai, I must invite the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind another problem, namely, the security of the Gulf in which there is a vital British interest. These tanks are being sent to Dubai to be integrated into the defence force of the United Arab Emirates to deal with security in the Gulf. They are light reconnaissance tanks with light armour. They would have no significance in the battle even if they were to go there.
I was asked why we do not denounce this Arab aggression. I take exactly the 36 same view as Lord George-Brown, when he was Foreign Secretary in the last war—that there is no profit in denouncing aggression. We must try to get a ceasefire and a settlement. If I have to go into this in the debate, I will. However, I think it is well known that in 1971 President Sadat said that Egypt no longer observed the cease-fire. He gave notice of that. This is a factor of which we have to take account.
Shall we be able to give Israel frontiers which will ensure her security? I hope that the need for secure frontiers will be universally accepted. That is the second part of the deal. It is a matter of the restoration of Arab territories in return for secure frontiers. There is no doubt that Israel must have her independent life. We are all in strong support of that.
Why did we sell arms to Israel or, for that matter, to Jordan or to Egypt? The idea—I think this policy was followed by the last Government—was to allow moderate rearmament to try to give these countries sufficient security in defence so that they did not have to resort to attack one upon the other. It may be said that that policy has failed, but that was the origin of it.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
Will my right hon. Friend now confirm that there is to be an urgent debate on this matter? The whole House wants to know as soon as possible when this debate is to take place. The situation is surely considerably graver than has so far been suggested by either Front Bench.
Regarding the quality of even-handedness and the embargo, I hope that when my right hon. Friend speaks in the debate, whenever it is, he will make clear to the House how the denial to about a quarter of the whole Israeli tank force of both ammunition and supplies can be equal-handed when Israel is being attacked by overwhelming masses of equipment imported from the Soviet Union. This should be made clear by the Government to the House and to the country. If not, they will go down in history as a bad Government showing a dishonest policy of not fulfilling contractual obligations.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I have made no secret of the fact that there were contracts. We have not broken the contracts. We have suspended them—[Interruption.] I think the laughter is 37 a bit too soon. We have suspended the contracts because in our view the overriding need for getting a cease-fire and a peace demands this. I will certainly make a full statement in the debate on what my right hon. Friend said is a fair balance.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Jordanians, unlike the Israelis, are wholly dependent on Britain for their arms supplies, including Centurions? Since Jordan has entered the war, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Arab opinion is rapidly coming round to joining Israeli opinion in opposition to the British arms embargo? Will he nevertheless resist pressure from both the Arabs and the Israelis to abandon this embargo so that we can maintain a position, which we had in 1967, of finding some honourable way of reaching a cease-fire and a peaceful settlement?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I think that is right. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed more adequately what I tried to say. I understand the difficulties, but I think the policy is right. It does not make sense in present circumstances to send spare parts and ammunition to both Jordan and Israel to reinforce their tank arm. I do not think that either the United States or the Soviet Union will be in a position to take a peace initiative. All the countries of Western Europe are observing the embargo or are putting it on. This may give Europeans a chance not only to initiate a peace settlement but also to take part in a peace-keeping exercise.

§ Sir J. Rodgers
I appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts to bring about an end to the fighting and to implement United Nations Resolution 242, but may I ask whether he is aware that there is considerable perturbation about the so-called even-handed embargo? Was it made clear to the Israelis when they bought the tanks that the contract would be suspended if hostilities broke out? Does my right hon. Friend think if that is allowed to become British policy throughout the world, that anybody will ever again buy British arms?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
It was not plain to the Israelis or to the Jordanians, but this is a situation in which, in order to get a peace of any kind in the Middle 38 East, it does not help for Britain to supply arms to both sides—and largely the same kind of arms. American and Soviet reinforcements will decide this situation. Ours are marginal, but I do not think that it makes sense to supply arms to both sides.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people in this country regard his so-called impartiality in this matter as just about as bogus as the impartiality of the National Government in 1936 in relation to Spain? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's Government denounce that act of perfidy on the Day of Atonement, on 6th October, when the right hon. Gentleman has rushed into a condemnation of Israel on so many other occasions?
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty about his assertion that he will desist from supplying arms to those countries in the arena or battleground? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to desist from supplying arms to all countries in the Middle East? The Foreign Secretary must be frank about that.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I thought I had indicated that there must be one exception to this, although it will not, in terms of arms, affect this battle at all. There must be an exception for Gulf security. We have too big a stake there to take risks in this respect, and therefore we must export some arms to countries in the Gulf area.
I hope that instead of trying to suggest that the balance between the Arabs and Israelis in relation to arms supplies is unfair the hon. Gentleman will convince himself that we are being fair. I have given this matter the most meticulous attention, and that is my view.

§ Mr. Crouch
I thank my right hon. Friend for his wisdom this afternoon in not indulging in a "holy war", which is so easy in this House when we consider the Middle East. Is my right hon. Friend aware that opinion in the country and in the House recognises the right of Israel to exist and of the Arabs to their own territory, but, above all, recognises that there must be justice, as expressed in Resolution 242? My right hon. Friend has done well by the House to keep the matter on this level in his statement and 39 answers today. I hope that he will not leave it to the super-Powers alone to bring pressure to bear to end the war but will, rather, seek to show that Europe is united in seeing that the rights of both sides are respected in an honourable and peaceful settlement?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. This is an intensely difficult situation in which to know whether one is doing right or wrong. I concede that at once to the House, but, having given the matter the most careful consideration that I could with my colleagues in the Government, I think that it is right to maintain the embargo.
The embargo will act fairly. I shall keep the whole matter under review as the war proceeds to see whether any change is necessary, but at present I think that it is right to concentrate on a settlement under Resolution 242.

§ Mr. Faulds
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is utterly nonsensical to talk about aggression or perfidy when what has happened here is that two Arab countries, Egypt and Syria, have taken steps that have been forced on them in order to reoccupy their own territory?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Over the years one has been very much afraid that the situation would develop in this way—that if no settlement was provided by anybody, and if there was no hope of a settlement, an explosion would take place on either side. That situation was inescapable.

§ Mr. Gorst
I recognise my right hon. Friend's great dilemma, but may I say frankly, candidly and bluntly to him that for this country to creep off the pages of history into frightened neutrality will do no good for our reputation for honest and honourable dealing, and that to bow down to the oily blackmail of the Arab States will make our position even worse in the ensuing years? This is the reverse of statesmanship. May I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm or deny that the events of the last 10 days have left United Nations Resolution 242 in torn and shattered shreds?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I could not accept that the policy of this Government 40 or that of the Government which preceded ours could truly be described as frightened neutrality. I reject that absolutely. We have tried to be as even handed as we could in the Middle East.
We all know that Resolution 242 has its ambiguities, but we all know, too, that it is the only resolution supported by the Israelis and Arabs and by a vast majority of the United Nations. It is within that framework, recognising the ambiguity of it, that a settlement must be found.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman has just said that in this situation—and we all accept this—it is difficult to know whether any course is right or wrong. In that spirit, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the arms embargo? Is he not aware that this must mean that one side has its hands tied by the immobilisation of tanks, which it bought for its own defence, by the failure to send ammunition for guns supplied by this country, attached to tanks supplied by this country?
Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to the 1967 embargo—and I should not want to contradict anything that he said—may I ask whether he is not aware that that was announced by the then Government on the basis that we were trying to give a lead and we would have to end the embargo if the lead were not followed? That lead was not followed, and we ended the embargo.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a difference on this occasion—namely, that even before Her Majesty's Government applied the embargo, and before Russia came into the picture, certain countries in North Africa—Libya, Algeria and others—made clear that they would supply arms and would not honour any embargo, and have now started supplying them? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the present basis is different from that on which we announced an embargo?

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Yes, Sir. The arms embargo applied in 1967 was one which, if I remember rightly, the Government of the day were willing to continue had the Soviet Union responded. At that time, if the embargo had continued Israel would have been penalised. In the last few years the supply of arms has been fairly equal to Egypt, to Jordan 41 and to Israel. I do not think that one side will come off better than the other if we resume the supply of arms.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have looked at this matter with the greatest care and that is my view. I do not think that the Israelis would be penalised vis-à-vis the Arabs, or vice versa. I shall keep the matter under review, as I have told the House and the right hon. Gentleman, but at the moment I am pretty sure that it is right to maintain our present position.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We should now move on to our other debates. Business Statement, Mr. Prior.

§ Mr. Iremonger
On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how I, as the Member elected to represent the largest Jewish community in the country, can possibly express to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the deep anxiety—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member had better try to catch my eye in the debate.