Middle East (Hansard, 21 March 1979)

§ 3. Mr. Watkinson
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Middle East.

§ Dr. Owen
The Government remain fully committed to a comprehensive peace settlement on the lines of the June 1977 declaration of the European Council meeting in London. In this context we welcome the Egyptian and Israeli agreement as providing a first and significant step towards a comprehensive settlement. However, we are under no illusion that this will be easy to achieve.

§ Mr. Watkinson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that essential to a lasting peace in the Middle East is a solution to the Palestinian problem? Does he acknowledge that it is basic, if the initiative of President Carter is to succeed, that there is early movement towards autonomy for the Palestinians and that a homeland is provided for them which they can govern and administer for themselves?

§ Dr. Owen
We believe that there must be a Palestinian homeland if there is to be a comprehensive peace settlement. We see as the first step towards that settlement full autonomy on the West Bank and in Gaza. The negotiations which are due to start a month after the signing of any peace treaty will be for everyone the crucial test. I hope that the Israeli Government will before then decide not to have any new settlements on the West Bank.

§ Mr. Walters
The reports that have emerged so far on the vital issue of linkage are not particularly encouraging. Should the reports prove correct, will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that 1474 EEC Ministers make a statement on linkage? Unless the Palestinians can exercise the right of self-determination within a reasonable time there will be no real peace.

§ Dr. Owen
EEC Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government have always stressed the need for a comprehensive peace settlement. Linkage will be demonstrated in the progress that the negotiations make, when they start, on the West Bank and in Gaza. We shall then be able to ascertain the extent of the commitment of the negotiating parties to try to achieve full autonomy. It will not be easy for Egypt, especially on the West Bank where it has less of a locus to negotiate. At present it appears extremely unlikely that any of the front line States will participate in the negations.

§ Mr. David Watkins
May I press my right hon. Friend still further? Is he aware that the central issue of the Middle East conflict is the right of the Palestinian nation to live in liberty in its own homeland, and that any treaty that does not relate to that issue is an exercise in fantasy rather than in peace? Will he press that view upon the President of the United States of America?

§ Dr. Owen
The problem is that the two sides negotiating hold diametrically opposite views. The Arab countries want a separate Palestinian State, while the Israelis are declining to consider that possibility. The advantage of a transitional period is that it should be possible to negotiate an autonomous State without either side prejudging the long-term issue as it relates to the Palestinian State.

§ Mr. Amery
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the agreement between Israel and Egypt, if it is concluded next week, will mean that there cannot, in the foreseeable future, be another Arab-Israeli war, and that that is the most positive development that we have seen for many years? Does he further agree that while the Palestinian cause is important, in the context of the overall Middle East situation since the Iranian revolution it is secondary to other matters? Will he ask his colleagues in the European Community to issue a declaration in full support of what President Carter has achieved, if only as a first step to a final overall settlement?

§ Dr. Owen
We have made our view clear. The view of other member States is an issue for them. Some member States have already commented. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen their comments. Whether the settlement precludes any form of war depends on the commitment of the two signatories to the treaty and the stability of the Governments. That is where there is great responsibility on both parties to demonstrate in the negotiations that they are prepared to meet the legitimate aspirations of the other negotiating party. For instance, Israel must recognise the risk that Egypt has taken in alienating a great section of Arab opinion. The parties must be able to demonstrate in the negotiations on the West Bank and Gaza that they are making progress towards a Palestinian homeland and full genuine autonomy.