§ 7. Mr. Madelasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is planning any fresh initiatives in regard to the Arab-Israeli dispute; and if he will make a statement.
§ Sir Ian GilmourThe Ten are considering how to carry forward European efforts during our Presidency in the light of Mr. van der Klaauw's report to his colleagues on his consultations with the parties. No decisions have been taken, but we remain committed to working for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East on the basis of the principles of the Venice declaration.
§ Mr. MadelWith the Israeli general election about to take place, do the Government believe that now would be an appropriate time for the PLO to state clearly that problems with Israel should be discussed peacefully and solved through peaceful negotiation and that informal contacts could then lead to meaningful negotiations?
§ Sir Ian GilmourAs my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) has just made clear, our wish is to see a reciprocal undertaking and, in particular, to persuade the PLO to make the conditional declaration to which my hon. Friend referred.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesDoes not the Minister agree that what matters most to the Arab countries of the Middle East 236 is not what the Americans decribe as the "threat from the East", but rather the failure so far to obtain justice for the Palestinian people? When the Minister discusses these matters with the Americans, will he make that clear to them? If it is not made clear, the prospect of any solution in the Middle East will be even remoter than what it appears at present.
§ Sir Ian GilmourI agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, although there is an East-West aspect to most of these subjects, the problem on the ground is what matters. The American Administration are well aware that the Israeli-Arab problem is central to Middle Eastern affairs, and that is certainly our view.
§ Sir Hugh FraserDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that the main problem on the ground is the fantastic number of armaments now in the Middle East? Is it not the case that East and West are building a tinder box which could explode at any moment? If the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) wants a new, worthwhile initiative rather than the Venice initiative, surely this is the time to ask the major Powers to consider Israel's own proposal that there should be a nuclear weapon-free zone in the area and, secondly, that there should be talks among all the major Powers concerned about supplying offensive weapons to the area?
§ Sir Ian GilmourI sympathise with what my right hon. Friend has said, but I cannot agree that securing disarmament in the area is more important than securing peace. The trouble is that the Middle East is already a tinder box, as recent events have shown. A nuclear-free area would be a good thing, and one of the first steps towards achieving that would be that all countries in the Middle East, including Israel, should sign the non-proliferation treaty.
§ Mr. David WatkinsIs it not now quite clear that the Camp David agreements provide no basis for peace in the Middle East? As it appears to be President Reagan's policy to appease Zionist aggression, and bearing in mind the fact that Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East, is it not time for a much stronger European initiative that is independent of American policy?
§ Sir Ian GilmourThe achievement of the Camp David agreements in bringing peace between Israel and Egypt was enormous, and I am sure that everyone in the House welcomes that. It is true that there has not been parallel progress in negotiations on the Palestinian part of the agreements, and something more than autonomy may well now be required. Obviously, we shall discuss this matter with our American allies, but I do not think it does any good to criticise them in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has done.