BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HC Deb 22 June 1982 vol 26 cc243-71

Ordered, That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Townsend

Is there no hope? Are the bloodshed and destruction bound to continue for decades? I say a hundred times "No". What has happened was not inevitable. It flowed from a lack of international understanding of the issues at the heart of the Middle East dispute and a lack of statesmanship by the world's leaders.

Great responsibility rests on America. For too long it has allowed Middle East policy to be a mere extension of domestic policy. Its professional diplomats understand that they have made a basic error of judgment where American interests are concerned. The United States of America had wished to accelerate the autonomy talks, but it must now recognise that Camp David is permanently under the recently blown sand. It would be a major mistake for the Reagan Administration to return to the carcases of old policies. What is needed is a complete rethinking of America's approach to the Middle East before Western influence in the Arab world is also buried.

Having made Israel the predominant power in that part of the world, America must now explain to Israel—it is no more than the truth—that conquering one's neighbours, far from bringing peace, will bring only ever more ferocious fighting, if not this year or the next, within a decade. I cannot believe that it is a good time to bring up small children in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Israel's future security depends on its having more friends than enemies in the Middle East, and on learning to live with its proud but divided Arab neigbours and with a Palestinian State. The indiscriminate bombing and blasting by Israeli soldiers and airmen in the Lebanon will not and cannot alter the basic fact that peace can be achieved only when the Palestinians have their own land in Palestine.

Britain and the European Community must show that not only do we recognise that the Middle East remains unfinished business but that we can put together and see through a long-term initiative in conjunction with America. To obtain the prompt withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the Lebanon, all members of the European Community should be prepared immediately to cut off supplies of arms and spares to Israel and, if necessary, to impose economic sanctions. I ask the Government one direct question: do they agree with that suggestion?

What has happened in the Lebanon during the past three weeks has been a cruel, savage and unnecessary disaster resulting from actions that fall far below acceptable standards of civilised conduct. Let us all hope and pray that out of the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples, out of the scarred streets of Sidon and out of the blackened debris of Beirut will come a new international comprehension and will to obtain a comprehensive, honourable and lasting peace. Or do we have to wait until nuclear weapons extend the limits of death and destruction beyond the confines of the Middle East?

10.5 pm

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

I have listened to the debate, but I had no intention of intervening. It is a most important debate, and one or two of the contributions have compelled me to rise. I say at once that I agree with the last sentiment in the speech of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

The moving speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) touched the spirit of many Members; and his approach, if carried through, could command a great deal of support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to the statements made in the Camp David agreement. He said that the sentiments that were included were extremely laudable. I agree, but they were not only laudable but were accepted by both sides.

Mr. Hooley

And signed by both sides.

Mr. Callaghan

Immediately after concluding the Camp David agreement I saw, or spoke on the telephone to, both Mr. Sadat and Mr. Begin. Mr. Begin came to Chequers. There is no doubt that at that time Mr. Begin, as the Prime Minister, had committed himself to a degree of autonomy which, I regret to say, he has not subsequently carried out. Much of the responsibility for the failure to proceed arises from Mr. Begin's failure in that matter.

What troubles me at the moment is the enthusiasm—I do not wish to range over the whole ground—with which some people are now proclaiming immediate self-determination for the Palestinians. That is not practicable. The command structure of the PLO has been destroyed. It is in no position to enforce self-determination, whether it be right or wrong. It cannot do so, because the might of Israel is too great. What is the point, therefore, except in stating a principle, in calling for immediate self-determination? Similarly, it is of no advantage to Britain or to the securing of peace in the Middle East for those who support Mr. Begin—I have not heard many of them tonight—to encourage continuing Israeli intransigence.

The virtue of Camp David, even though the term is abused now—never let it be forgotten that Camp David has provided for the first time a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and is a profound historical document—

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I shall not give way now because I do not wish to take up other hon. Members' time. I am intervening in a debate in which I know others have prepared their speeches. I have not. I want simply to make a brief intervention and then sit down.

I wish that the Foreign Secretary would be more than lukewarm about the process of autonomy. We cannot support Mr. Begin's Government in their complete intransigence, nor is it possible for peace in the Middle East to support the idea of immediate self-determination. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley appeared to be moving towards.

The wisdom of the agreement by Sadat, Begin and Carter was that there was to be an interim period in which the Palestinians should gain more powers, which I believed at that time, and which Begin almost conceded at that time, should include legislative powers as well as mere administrative powers. Mr. Begin has gone back on that, but it was the intention that the Palestinians should have those powers. If that could be conceded so that each side could learn to live together and grow together and if, at the end of a fixed period—I do not know whether it is four or five years—there were a determination as to what should be the future of the Palestinians, is not that the path of wisdom? Is not that the best path for British interests to pursue? It is better than saying that we support self-determination for the Palestinians tomorrow. I know that the Foreign Secretary did not say that, but some people imply it. We shall not get peace that way but a bloody war, which may be extended.

Although the term "Camp David" may be blighted and forgotten because the other Arab States do not like it, although Mr. Begin may approve of much more intransigence and has gone back on some of the statements that he made to me and although the Palestinians feel, as they undoubtedly do at the moment, that they are a minority that has been beset, abused and grossly ill-treated, surely the path for Britain to take is to say that we want to go on with the process of encouraging those people who live together and saying to Israelis and Palestinians "You cannot have your full objectives now. If you want peace above all and if you want to avoid nuclear war above all, you cannot have your total objectives at this stage, but both of you can have something that will give security to one and will move towards the aspirations of the other, with the hope that in due course they can come together."

I agree with those who want to see a larger arrangement in the Middle East. I have had conversations with these people over many years. There is no reason why the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Palestinians cannot come to an intergovernmental arrangement to develop that area.

10.13 pm

Mr. Peter Thomas (Hendon, South)

I have noted your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I assure the House that my speech will be short.

I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and that he intervened in the debate, because his speech was wise and born of experience. I am happy to say that I should like to be associated with the remarks that he made.

I shall confine my remarks to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. That has been the main topic of debate tonight. The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) talked about provocation that he had witnessed in Israel. In view of the undoubted mounting acts of aggression against Israel by PLO forces and terrorists, it came as no surprise that Israeli forces advanced into South Lebanon. The surprise, if any, was the extent of their advance and their stern determination to destroy the PLO as a military force.

The appalling loss of civilian life and widespread destruction of property that that determination occasioned, perhaps to some extent inevitably, produced understand-able reactions of protest and horror expressed not just abroad but in Israel itself, where concern and criticism have been freely expressed, as one would expect in a democracy.

Of course, the Israeli Government see that as a sad but just fight for the protection of their citizens and for the security of their territory. There can be, and will continue to be, I have no doubt, arguments as to whether the cost outweighed the cause. There can be no argument as to the Israelis' military successes in pursuing their main objectives. I see no value in engaging in crimination. We serve our interests better if we consider whether anything positive can emerge from the grave position that now obtains. It is clear that Israeli forces must withdraw from the Lebanon. Israel accepts that, but pressure should now be brought to demand not just the withdrawal of those forces but the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Lebanon.

We in the West should be prepared to give all the assistance that we can towards the reconstruction of a truly independent Lebanon. That will be no easy task, but the chance of the emergence of a stable and effective government in the Lebanon is probably greater now than it has been for years. If such a government were to emerge, it could well be a solution to many of the problems recently faced in the Middle East and would certainly be a source of encouragement to those moderate Arab States whose friendships are so important to us in the West. I hope that that is something that the Government will not reject. It is the course advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser). I hope that the Government will consider that and will work closely in co-operation with the United States of America.

The attitude that the key to Middle East peace lies in negotiations between Israel and the PLO must clearly be abandoned. That is and always has been an illusion. There can never be a sufficient meeting of minds between Israel and the PLO. Arab aspirations on the West Bank can only be attained if Israel is confident of her security. A major contribution to that confidence would be a stable, independent and friendly Lebanon. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone that there is now a chance—I put it no higher—that recent events have made that possible. If that happens, the Israeli Government, freed from the PLO military menace, can concentrate on the autonomy talks regarding the West Bank and Gaza and the difficult and important issue of finding a lasting solution to the Palestine problem. It is on that that peace in the Middle East depends.

10.18 pm

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I have listened to all the speeches tonight with great interest. I wonder whether there is one element which could unite us all even though we take such differing points of view. Surely that must be our anxiety for the suffering of innocent people on both sides of the Lebanese-Israel border; throughout the Middle East; in Iraq and Iran; the 98,000 Lebanese who died before the outbreak of the present fighting, as well as the Lebanese who have been recently killed, whether they were taking part in the war, or were in hospitals or schools used as bases for artillery. Innocent people have died and are suffering.

We are right also to debate this subject because it affects some of us very personally. From the spillover of suffering in the Middle East comes bloodshed here. I add my tribute to Ambassador Argov, who we all hope will recover his health speedily and fully.

Unfortunately, it is not only Ambassador Argov who has fallen to the terrorist bullet. In another capacity I went to Vienna to visit the Jewish community after two men shouting "PLO, PLO" sprayed bullets at people coming out of prayer and killed two of them. I have been to Antwerp where a bomb outside a synagogue on a holy day killed non-Jewish people, completely innocent. There is a wave of terror which unfortunately spreads out from the Middle East and involves the lives of too many innocent people throughout the world.

One area of common ground that should be shared with the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, is his concern about this terror. I received a letter from him not so long ago in which he wrote: The unreserved condemnation by this government and the Nine of terrorism in all its forms is a matter of record. You may be sure also that every opportunity is taken, in the contacts which officials have with the PLO, to stress to them that the PLO must renounce its involvement with terrorism and that such terrorism is a major impediment to a Middle East peace settlement. We shall continue to make our views forcibly known. I much regret that neither of the Front Bench spokesmen today saw fit to express that view.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. and learned Gentleman has catalogued a series of terrorist crimes. Will he include and add to the list of terrorist crimes that he has been talking about the murder, mutilation and killing of 14,000 people in the Lebanon by the Israelis in the past two weeks?

Mr. Janner

No. Unfortunately, those of us who have been soldiers know that there is little horror that war does not bring with it. No crime can be worse than that committed by those who claim to be freedom fighters or soldiers and who bury their headquarters, their armaments, their missiles and their artillery in refugee camps, hospitals, schools, and in other places where they have ensured that unfortunate civilians are held before them as shields. They do so in the hope that people such as the hon. Gentleman will make precisely the point that he has. If we wish to make any contribution towards a civilised debate, it is necessary to recognise another side of the issue that neither Front Bench spokesman—[Interruption.] Those who wish to take part in a civilised debate will no doubt ask themselves why it is that the nation of Israel, which treasures every one of its own people—

Mr. Faulds

You can say that again.

Mr. Janner

Yes. Israel is a tiny country in which every life is treasured, and its people do not go to war because they enjoy it. The Israelis wish to bring their soldiers home.

Mention has already been made of an alleged lack of provocation. There have been about 290 attacks on Israelis, on Jewish people and on other innocents, gunned down by the PLO and its affiliates since 24 July 1981.

Mr. Faulds

Who told you that?

Mr. Janner

The last person to talk to Ambassador Argov before he was shot down was Archbishop Bruno Heim, the Pope's Ambassador to the Court of St. James's. The archbishop was beside Ambassador Argov when he was shot. He was later informed by the police that he survived only because the gun jammed when it was swung round at him after having been aimed at the ambassador.

Mr. Faulds

Zionist make-believe.

Mr. Janner

I think that the House will draw its own conclusion from the buffoon obscenity which emerges when a man like Archbishop Heim is insulted.

Mr. Faulds

It is strange that we have not had reports of that.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is unfair for the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to make a running commentary when another point of view has been advanced at considerable length in the House. The House has been anxious to hear both points of view with care.

Mr. Janner

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.

We have one great joy in this country and especially in the House: even a point of view which is unpopular is heard. I have listened while hon. Friends on the whole have quoted Israelis attacking the Israeli Government. They have that privilege because that is the only democracy in the Middle East. Anyone in an Arab country who dared attack the Government would be shot dead. That is why I disagree totally with those who maintain that there is no greater possibility now than there was before of an emergence of some form of communication between Arabs and Israelis. Anyone who has been to Israel will know that the fear of PLO shooting is not confined to the relatives of the Imam of the Gaza mosque who was shot dead by them, or to the dozens of others who have suffered because of the actions of an organisation which is, alas, terrorist.

If one wants to know the nature of the organisation, one might do no better than look at the lead letter in today's Yorkshire Post which was handed to me a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), who is unfortunately unlikely to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I should like to read only a couple of paragraphs to give a clear indication of the views of this English lady, who is married to an Arab who lived in the Lebanon, Mrs. Frances Atib: I can honestly say that I do not support the PLO. They are an evil group of people. The Lebanese people hate them and so do most of the civilised decent Arab people. During the last month we watched the PLO turn our apartment block into a military fortress. The forecourt where our children used to play was filled by four large artillery guns. Further arms trucks and a huge pile of ammunition were placed right under the flats, like many homes in the Middle East built on stilts. It was a horrific sight. As my husband sadly forecast at the time, many civilians would be killed if the PLO were to be engaged in battle. I wished I had been there when the Israeli army finally freed my beloved village from the PLO. They must have been welcomed with open arms by the people".

I am not a supporter of the right hon. Lady and her Government, but that does not mean that actions taken by that Government are necessarily wrong. If I lived in Israel I certainly would not support Mr. Begin or his Government, but that does not mean that that democratically elected Government are wrong in the view they take about the actions necessary to defend their people from an attack by an organisation such as the PLO.

When the Israelis crossed the border they found a build-up of war supplies which was to be aimed at them. They found far more than they had expected. There were over 100 tanks of the most modern and sophisticated kind supplied by the Soviet Union and over 1,000 missiles of the most dangerous variety also supplied by the Soviet Union. They discovered a total arsenal which was there not to defend anyone against anything but to carry out the PLO's job, which is, was and, so far as I know, will be likely to remain the total destruction of the State of Israel and, if necessary, to do so by methods of terror.

Mr. John Dunlop (Mid-Ulster)

Would the hon. and learned Member agree that they found there also many elements of the IRA being trained and equipped for their war against the people in Ulster, their so-called gallant fight for freedom, which the stupid Americans and other people talk about sometimes? Would he agree that that is where these people have been trained and equipped for their war against Britain in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Janner

I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have it on the excellent authority of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, who came here, alas, to attend a memorial service for my father on Sunday, that the Israelis uncovered many tons of documents showing the international nature of terrorism, and that they also captured nationals from many countries who were being trained for the terrorist organisations of those countries. I have no information whatever about the IRA, but evidence of the international nature of terrorism has certainly been unearthed during this operation.

More than 50 per cent. of the population of Israel are themselves refugees from Arab countries. They have settled in a land where they wish to live in peace and where they have made peace with Egypt. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) so forcefully said, it takes two sides to achieve an agreement like the Camp David agreement. I was therefore shocked when a Conservative Member, referring to the grief in the United States at the assassination of President Sadat, criticised the Americans for taking it as a personal matter. We should all have taken it as a personal grief because he was one of the greatest men that some of us have ever been privileged to meet. He was the architect of a miraculous peace settlement—not on his own, but with the much-maligned Mr. Begin, who leads a very Right-wing Government that many of us would never support but who nevertheless helped to bring that about. I was also shocked at the criticism of Mr. Begin for the way in which he moved people out of Sinai in order to honour the agreement that he had made. We must disagree very much with him, but he honoured that agreement in a way that caused great problems in his own country.

If the British Government wish to play any role in the future, they must be regarded as a Government who take a fair and balanced view and are not protagonists of any one side in this sad dispute. I was saddened by the speeches of both Front Bench spokesmen, as I believe that anyone hearing them would now regard both sides as protagonists of one party in the conflict, thus putting this country out of the role of helping in the peacemaking process.

Finally, I add as a postscript a paragraph from one of the remarkable articles by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, headed Israel's Alternative: The peace of death", in which he says: When all of Israel's neighbours follow Egypt's example, in accepting Israel's right to existence, and when none of these states any longer harbours armed terrorists pledged to Israel's destruction, then the idea of a Palestinian state will begin to become compatible with Israel's right to existence. It may be that the week's events"— the events in Lebanon— will have the effect of bringing Israel and it neighbours nearer to that point. We must all pray that that will come about, and we must each in our own way do what we can to achieve that end and, in particular, an end to suffering throughout that tortured region.

10.33 pm

Mr. Michael Latham (Melton)

I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). In the first minute of my speech I wish to make a personal point and say why I am, and always have been, a fervent supporter of the State of Israel. I am not a Jew and I have no personal or constituency interest in the matter. I support the State of Israel, as I am sure that other hon. Members support the PLO, out of a sense of personal conviction and emotion.

I believe that the creation of the State of Israel and its courageous defence by its citizens ever since has been an inspiring cause. Whenever I have had doubts, I have gone to Yad Vashem or looked at pictures of it—the memorial in Jerusalem to the holocaust, to the millions of Jews butchered by the Nazi beasts and to the determination of the children of those who survived the gas chambers to have a State of their own in which Jews could live in freedom in the land with which their people had identified since Titus sacked the Second Temple in AD70.

If there is one political aim and political fact that means everything to me, it is that throughout the 20 centuries of diaspora, pogrom, persecution and horror, some of the Jewish people have remained in the land of Israel, clinging to the soil from which so many have tried to expel them. Conquerors have come and gone since the birth of Christ—Romans, Persians, Omayyads, Mamelukes, Saracens, Franks, Turks and British. But the Jews have remained. All over the world other Jews have prayed and dreamt of their return. No other nation has had Jerusalem as its capital except the Jews. I am proud that it was three Great Britons and Members of the House—David Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour and Sir Winston Churchill—who did much to establish the modern State for the Jewish people.

There is one objective fact that should never be forgotten or ignored when we discuss modern Israel. The Jew is not going to leave the Middle East. There will be no settlement in the region that is not acceptable to Israel. If the Jewish people had listened to the diplomats, the compromisers and timid anti-Zionists, there would have been no Jewish State today.

The Jews accepted the British mandatory Government's offer to set up a Jewish agency in 1923. The Arabs refused. The Jews accepted the Peel Commission report in 1937, which recommended partition. The Arabs refused. The Jews supported the United Nations in setting up the Unscop inquiry. The Arabs boycotted it. The General Assembly on 29 November 1947 gave a two-thirds majority to the Unscop plan. The outcome was brutal war. Through the oceans of Jewish blood that has been spilt over the centuries, the link between the people and their land has endured.

Why do the Israeli people not negotiate with the PLO? Why are they not content with their pre-1967 borders? I do not favour a Zionist Greater Israel annexing the West Bank, any more than I agree with an Arab Greater Syria swallowing up the Lebanon. But Syria, which has never properly recognised the Lebanon, has always thought in those terms ever since the French mandatory power deposed the Emir Faisal from the throne of Syria in 1920 and set up Lebanon as a separate entity especially created from previous Turkish sub-provinces, with a French governor.

I do not believe that the area that is described in United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 of 29 November 1947 as "Judaea and Samaria" belongs automatically to Israel or to Jordan. I consider that its status is undetermined. The last legal owner was the British mandatory power, which itself acted with dubious legality when Sir Winston Churchill, after the Cairo conference of 1921, put the Emir Faisal on the throne of Iraq and made his brother the Emir Abdullah the independent ruler of a newly invented country of Transjordan, contrary to the decisions of the San Remo conference.

This was also wholly contrary to the spirit of the MacMahon correspondence with Sherif Husain and was in accordance with the cynical diplomacy of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement. Only two countries have ever recognised the Jordanian annexation between 1950 and 1967, one of which was Britain. That annexation was no more legal in terms of treaties than would Mr. Begin's annexation of the same territories be now. It was based solely on the rights of conquest by a belligerent Power. It is not even clear whether Jordan still maintains a territorial claim over what it calls the West Bank or whether this claim was vacated in favour of the PLO at the Rabat conference of 1974.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in a letter to me on 4 May: Our contacts with the Jordanian Government leave us in no doubt that she maintains that claim. We understand that the Jordanians regard the decision at Rabat as one about who should speak politically for the Palestinians, and that this decision does not, in the Jordanian view, affect the question of Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

With regard to the sovereignty of the West Bank, does my hon. Friend agree that the people who live there have a strong interest in its status? That is the right way to look at it, not to pursue some legalistic argument, which we have heard over a number of years, about the authority of the British mandate and the authority of the Jordanian Government to incorporate it into Jordan.

Mr. Latham

I shall deal precisely with that point in a moment when I talk about autonomy, because that is what it is all about.

If Jordan still claims the West Bank, why does it not take immediate steps to assert its claim through diplomacy, just as it took steps to protect its territorial integrity when it expelled the PLO in 1970 after the PLO had tried to assassinate King Hussein? If there is no longer a Jordanian claim, but only a recognition of the PLO, the Israeli settlements on the West Bank cannot be illegal in international law, as there is no undisputed sovereign owner of that territory. The PLO is not, of course, a sovereign power.

Whatever the legal ownership, I see no reason why the West Bank as a whole should be regarded as Judenrein. The whole of Transjordan was deliberately kept free of Jews by the British, and has been so ever since.

If Jews wish to live in the historic areas of Judea and Samaria from which so much of their civilisation sprang, I see no reason why they should not do so. But that is not to determine the eventual status of the area. That remains to be settled in the context of an overall peace settlement in accordance with Security Council resolution 242.

What, then, should be the steps for progress on the West Bank? I now deal directly with my hon. Friend's intervention. The defeat of the PLO in Lebanon may allow for some more progress than has been possible since that organisation was set up in 1964—before the 1967 war—to eliminate Israel from all its borders. The PLO's aims have not changed. Farouk Khadoumi told the German magazine Stern on 30 July 1981: We shall never allow Israel to live in peace … I shall make it perfectly clear to you. We shall never recognise Israel".

Only one solution remains on the table. It is not the Venice declaration, which has been rejected by both Israel and the PLO, or the Fahd plan, which collapsed like a house of cards when even the PLO, which was supposed to have drafted it, turned against it. Only the Camp David agreements remain, from which have flowed peace between Egypt and Israel. Negotiating 'with Israel has produced for Egypt the return of the whole of Sinai.

It is instructive to read directly from those sections of the Camp David accords which deal with the West Bank and Gaza. There are to be five years of transitional arrangements, during which a freely elected local administration is to emerge. The Government of Jordan will be involved in those discussions, which specifically refer to the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of those territories".

The Palestinians are to be directly represented in the Egyptian and Jordanian delegations. There is to be a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces. Within three years of the establishment of the self-governing authority there are to be negotiations to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and to conclude an Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. Those negotiations are to include elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The negotiations are to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements. Their agreement is to be submitted to a vote by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.

As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, President Sadat and President Carter both saw that here was a tremendous opportunity for the West Bank Arabs. It could ultimately have led to a Palestinian autonomous State. Nothing in the Camp David accords ruled out such a solution, if only the PLO had not prevented the local Arabs from seizing the best opportunity they ever had to achieve something that there has never been—an autonomous Palestinian State with recognised borders. But the PLO rejected it, just as the Arabs rejected Peel, Unscop and so much else as well.

The reason is very clear. The PLO is not really interested in a mini-State on the West Bank, except as a preliminary to the ultimate extinction of what it calls the "Zionist entity" itself. It means what it says. There is no reason to disbelieve it. That is why Israel will never countenance handing over the West Bank to them, no matter how many resolutions are passed at the United Nations or at Venice.

I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that until this evening we had heard a good deal about Lebanon but rather less about the tremendous slaughter in Iraq and Iran. Syria, with which our relations are supposed to be "good", according to an answer by the Minister of State last week, went uncondemned when 12,000 of its troops with heavy artillery and Soviet tanks shelled and shot up Hama in February. At least 5,000 Hama Syrians were killed, and the death toll may be as high as 25,000, according to local diplomats there. What happened to the voice of the Security Council or the General Assembly over that?

If Israel shells the PLO that is called genocide, but if President Assad shells his own people it is ignored. Only yesterday, in answer to me, the Minister of State was repeating the Foreign Office line that the Syrian army is in Lebanon by virtue of a mandate from the Arab League and that UNIFIL remains in place. Surely, the key to peace in Lebanon must involve the removal of all external armed forces, including the PLO, and the establishment of a demilitarised zone in the southern part of the country. Why not say so now?

With that there should go a fresh diplomatic drive by the Government to get the autonomy talks back on the road. They have never had much support from Europe. But the changed situation in the Middle East may give fresh momentum to the only peace plan that has support from Israel, Egypt and the Americans. No Middle Eastern country has lifted a finger to help the PLO over the past two weeks. No Arab nation really wants the PLO. Out of the terrible carnage and wreckage of Lebanon, the Western Powers should now try to support their American allies.

Israel has shown over Sinai that it is prepared to cede territory in exchange for real peace between sovereign nations. That must the best road to follow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Before calling the next speaker, may I remind the House that the debate ends at midnight. The winding-up speeches, I understand, will begin at 11.20 pm. It will be helpful if contributions are short.

10.47 pm

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

I was hoping that the debate would concentrate on Lebanon. It is, goodness knows, a big enough problem. However, hon. Members have gone over a great deal of history, and I should like to comment on some of the statements that have been made. I believe, for example, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) misinterpreted a point that I made about the build-up of Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East, which he looked upon as a danger to the West. I tried to point out that, in that case, there should be a strengthening or cementing of these relations with each other, with the Arab countries, and with the Muslim countries because we should be concentrating on Israel. It is the fact that Israel is there that is the focal point for them. If Israel was not there, they would be free to engage in other activities that might be injurious to us. I shudder to think of the kind of choice that we, in this country, the United States and the other people of Europe would have to make if there was no State of Israel.

At the moment, we and those in other Western countries can make friendly overtures to any Arab country that we wish merely by evincing some kind of criticism of the State of Israel. That keeps things sweet for a little while. If, however, there were no State of Israel, we should have to start clarifying with whom we wished to be friends in the Middle East. None of us here is unaware that the strife in the area stems from all kinds of internecine difficulties and troubles. We would experience a considerable degree of difficulty if we had to try to sort out one possible friend from another. By making a friend of one, we would be making an enemy of all the others. That would be a recipe for disaster—or, at any rate, a possibility of disaster.

However, I do not want to comment on too many matters which do not relate directly to the Lebanon problem. The Foreign Secretary said that the scale of the Israeli attack was not justified. Who decided the scale of attack when we went to the Falkland Islands? No one but ourselves. In my opinion, the decision should be left to the people who think that they are to be attacked—not to other people.

Mr. Crouch

Fourteen thousand dead.

Dr. Miller

I shall come to that in a moment.

The Foreign Secretary said also that the invasion was a setback to the diplomatic process. What diplomatic process? Does he mean the constant reiteration of the desire to annihilate the State of Israel, backed by 20,000 guerrillas, armed to the teeth, in the Lebanon? What were they doing there? It was not a holiday camp. They were there to try to implement the desire that they had, ever since their founding in 1964, to obliterate the State of Israel.

In debating the Lebanon question, I find myself very much in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), both of whom made valuable contributions to our debate. I, too, feel that it is difficult to justify the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I do not deny that. It is difficult to justify any invasion, not just the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is not easy to justify any invasion, but some invasions are worse than others. It is a matter of regret—but none the less true—that the kind of world that we should like to live in does not exist. The world is still a jungle, and we are still a long way from resolving our differences by peaceful means. It is unfortunate but true. Armed conflict is the option which, all too frequently, is chosen.

It has often been said that war does not solve problems. I agree with that statement, but, if I told a patient whose illness was incurable that I did not intend to give him anything for it, he would surely be entitled to ask for some palliative, or even something to relieve his pain. It is not enough to say to Israel "What you are doing will not solve your problems". Israel knows that, and we all know that, but at least it is a palliative in the absence of any other concrete plans. Anyone can put forward ideas, and no idea is better than another merely because of the person who puts it forward.

I deplore the violent upheaval in the Lebanon. I deplore the loss of life, especially among innocent civilians. I also deplore the callous indifference to human life of those who deliberately position their headquarters, operation rooms, and gun emplacements in the midst of civilian populations.

Mr. Crouch

When did they last fire a shell on Israel?

Dr. Miller

There have been many infringements of the ceasefire during the past year.

For a number of years, Lebanon has not been a sovereign and independent State. Its territorial integrity has completely disintegrated under the twin impact of the PLO's terrorism and Syrian military occupation. Israel has reacted to the escalating threats coming from those who wish to destroy her. I am not an admirer of Mr. Begin, but I have similar reservations about joining the fan club of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister, although I believe that she was right to protect the British citizens of the Falkland Islands. We despatched an armada of 100 ships and a force of between 10,000 and 12,000 men to defend the liberty of people 8,000 miles away. How can that right be denied to the Israelis whose enemies are on their borders?

James Cameron expressed that view in The Guardian last Tuesday. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is here, because I wish to quote from the article: One of the stirring sights of the last few days was that of Mr. Francis Pym on television reproving the Israelis for resorting to armed violence in the Middle East. That is what I so deeply respect in politicians: their quality of detachment, of selective morality, of open hypocrisy openly expressed. To be sure he was right: the Israelis were at that very moment shooting people some 40 miles outside their own frontier. Clearly it had slipped Mr. Pym's honest mind, in his righteous indignation, that HMG's own concerns were at that same moment even more remote, shooting people 8,000 miles away from the homeland. I wonder: did Mr. Pym feel an imminent threat of Argentine aggression on his back garden, as the Israelis, have had from the PLO for some 30 years?

I must admit that I do the Foreign Secretary some little injustice. He made a better speech than did my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. James Cameron was exaggerating a little in his criticism of the right hon. Gentleman.

One must consider the scale of carnage that occurs during wars. I am not justifying it, merely stating that it occurs. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) must remember that in the Second World War the British pulverised Hamburg, Berlin, the Ruhr and Dresden. Dresden was a pulverisation of civilians; there were no military installations there. That was done because there was a war and because we were in imminent danger of being swallowed by the Nazis. Therefore, we should avoid hypocrisy in what we say.

Mr. Crouch

The hon. Gentleman has spoken of palliatives. I know that he speaks sincerely of what he believes in. We still speak sincerely, even in the Middle East debates, when we could have had a holy war between the two views on the problem. Does he remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that there had been casualties in Lebanon—up to 14,000 women, children and civilians dead? Apart from those casualties, does he not agree that the greatest casualty of the war resulting from the invasion of Lebanon has been the views held of the State of Israel in the rest of the world?

Dr. Miller

It has been said that the greatest casualty in war is truth. That is the first casualty. I have no better way of knowing than does the hon. Gentleman what the exact casualties are. All I know is that there has been an enormous number of casualties. There are no independent sources. One must not pretend that one side has all the truth when it comes to reporting.

Whether one likes it or not, and I do not, the trouble is that Israel has assumed the role of a militant peacemaker. The Israelis are acting as a police force because there is no effective international force that can do that work, although there should be.

As has been said before, there is hardly a country that is not at least secretly pleased at the hammering that the PLO has received. That is especially true of Israel's Arab neighbours.

It has also been said that the Israeli Labour Party issued a statement last week. Among its 11 points were the following.

The first point was that Israel must adhere scrupulously to the declared objectives of the "Peace for Galilee" operation. Point five was that an overall ceasefire based on reciprocity must be adhered to. Point eight was that there should be support for the establishment of an independent Lebanese Government with international assistance which does not depend upon the Israeli defence forces. Point nine stipulates that all foreign troops must be withdrawn from the Lebanon, leaving Lebanon to the Lebanese. The tenth point is that there should be negotiations with Jordan and participation of Palestinian representatives with the aim of coming closer to reaching peace and a political solution to problems which cannot be solved militarily.

Many references have been made to the criticisms voiced by Israelis and by the Israeli Parliament. In a democracy, criticisms are voiced. It is salutary to note that few similar criticisms have been made in those countries dedicated to Israel's destruction. Most wars result from disputes about sovereignty over a territory or stem from injured pride and from the need to protect one's nationals. Some wars have even been fought for economic reasons. However, the Arab-Israeli conflict is unique. It is the only conflict in which one side wants to eliminate the other. The Arabs have never recognised Israel's right to exist and for 34 years they have tried to annihilate it.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) quoted Conor Cruise O'Brien in The Observer of 13 June. The article's heading was Israel's alternative: The peace of death". Suicide is too high a price to be asked to pay, even for peace.

11.1 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)

In his excellent speech at the outset of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appealed to hon Members not to make too many stereotype speeches which would merely mirror the prevailing passions of factions within the Middle East. However, the last few speeches have fallen into that trap.

In a conflict with such global implications, we should remember first and foremost that we are British Members of Parliament, who are here to look to the British and Western interests. One of the more worrying aspects of the present crisis is that a great divide may be opening up between the European and American perspectives on Western interests in the Middle East today. That great divide is caused not only by America's special relationship with Israel—a relationship so special that some American politicians seem to say "My Israel, right or wrong"—but by America's failure to realise the implications of the tidal wave of Islamic fundamentalism which is having a great effect, particularly on the conservative Arab Gulf States and on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has natural pro-American instincts, but in the long term such countries will be grieviously undermined in their pro-American, pro-Western stance unless there is a shift in American policy. I concurred with the distinguished speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He pointed out that perhaps the greatest service that the House could do was to give some clear guidelines to our allies, the Americans, about the direction of their Middle Eastern policy.

In my brief speech I shall try to identify the long-term Western interests in the Middle East and suggest how best those interests can be supported. Perhaps the best way of doing that is to turn to the immediate theatres of conflict in Lebanon and elsewhere. Behind the horrors of the civilian dead in Lebanon lies a complex political situation. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that many of the Lebanese have no great love for the Palestinians. It is a little-reported fact that as the Israeli troops went in they were cheered as liberators by many Muslim and Christian Lebanese. That background has led many people, including some hon. Members in the debate—notably my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser)—to echo the cry "Let us have a Lebanon for the Lebanese". It is a seductive cry at first glance for Western as well as Lebanese interests.

But who are the Lebanese? It is a country of contradictory discontents that is built on successive generations of refugees. For that reason, the Lebanese know deep down that the Palestinians cannot be driven out, much less exterminated, by Israeli aggression. Surely the old maxim that the guerrilla wins if he does not lose will continue to be true in Lebanon as in other countries. The PLO guerrillas will regroup in the hills, bloody but unbowed, or there will be the more sinister development that the extemists in the terrorist movement will come to the fore and carry their terrorist warfare perhaps even to Europe and America.

However successful the present Israeli military operation is, the PLO will be back in business in months rather than years. Although some Lebanese may long for a Syrian withdrawal and a weakening of the PLO, "Lebanon for the Lebanese" is an unrealistic idea until a Palestinian solution is found. Whatever the short-term military attractions of the Israeli invasion, the best that can be said is that it is buying time for Israel at the price of enormously increasing bitterness. The Israelis are sowing a wind to reap a whirlwind. Western policy makers should not be diverted by the short-term advantages of the position in Lebanon into believing that there is any substitute for a serious move towards the creation of a land for the Palestinians.

All calculations about the delays or about a Palestinian phoenix rising from the ashes of West Beirut today could be accelerated by the activities of the revolutionary Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and elsewhere. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that we have all gravely underestimated the force of that movement. It is by far the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. Western interests in the area are threatened by the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. That revolutionary force for change is dedicated to the overthrow of more conservative Governments and regimes that are neither revolutionary nor fundamentalist. As a sixteenth century verse said of European religious warriors, the present Islamic fundamentalists are determined to prove their doctrine orthodox by apostolic blows and knocks.

The Iranian Shi'ites and their followers are determined to create havoc in that area. They have already won a war against Iraq, formed dramatic alliances with Libya and Syria, narrowly missed pulling off a major coup in Bahrein and given huge support to the PLO. They will stir up massive trouble in the Arab world in years to come unless the moderates in that world are seen to aid and abet progress towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Let us consider Saudi Arabia, which internally has never been more stable. The recent tranquil accession to the throne by King Fahd only emphasises the good record of the Saudi Royal Family, which has ruled that country peacefully and popularly for nearly 50 years. However, externally, Saudi Arabia is threatened by the storm clouds that are gathering beyond its borders. Khomeini and Begin represent problems that cannot be solved by the traditional Saudi weapon—the cheque book.

The new king must show great international statesmanship. Fortunately, while crown prince he showed a flair for diplomacy and statesmanship unequalled by any previous Saudi monarch. The Fahd plan, about which we heard so much last year, was a very hopeful and imaginative proposal for peace in the Middle East. Despite its demise at the Fez summit at the hands principally of the Syrians, the Fahd plan would almost certainly have been resuscitated during the next few months had it not been so sadly overtaken by events in Lebanon in the past few weeks.

Now King Fahd, as leader of the Arab moderates, will have to try again. As he is a pro-United States Arab leader he will seek Western and particularly United States support in his efforts. Yet, without the backing of Washington, peacemaking in the Middle East is like trying to clap hands with one hand.

The key to the situation in the Middle East is the future of the United States—Israel relationship. At present Washington is letting Israel get away with murder and has been doing so for a considerable time. Whether it is Israel annexing the Golan Heights, whether it is Israel bombing the Iraqi reactors in Baghdad, whether it is Israel expanding its illegal settlements or whether it is Israel embarking on the present totally disproportionate wave of bloody aggression in which some 14,000 eyes are being taken for one eye, what has been the American reaction? It has been the diplomatic equivalent of giving Mr. Begin a weak slap on the wrist.

There has to come a moment when the United States Administration stop their present policy towards Israel of talking softly and carrying a big floppy handkerchief in the face of such disgraceful Israeli outrages. There is a cynical reason—not in the interests of justice or humanity—that one might appeal to, a cynical reason why America should change her policy.

The interests of the United States and her Western allies depend on stopping the present trend of Israeli policy. That policy stems from the belief that her Arab neighbours are out to destroy Israel. In fact, what those Arab neighbours really want is exactly what the Israelis themselves wanted before 1948, a homeland for a dispossessed people. That is the direction in which American policy should now go.

11.12 pm

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (Norfolk, North-West)

I am sure that the House will agree that the continuing conflicts in the Middle East remain the most potent threat to world peace. A solution to the complex and ever-changing problems has evaded statesmen, Governments and the United Nations for more than 30 years. Although we can be forgiven for thinking on occasions, not least after such debate as this, that the problems are insoluble, no effort must be spared by the international community to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable, under the lengthening shadow of more widespread threats to peace throughout the region and as nuclear weapons become more widely available.

The latest outbreak of fighting in Southern Lebanon is a flagrant breach by Israel of the United Nations charter, involving a crossing of a territorial boundary and the violation of Lebanon by Israeli forces with such ferocity and with such a deployment of military might as to cause wholly unacceptable damage to the civilian population of that country. Indeed, it is clear that, unlike previous Israeli military operations, this one has caused substantial dissent within Israel itself once the operation ceased to be directed solely to re-establishing a security belt and became an all-out attempt to destroy the PLO, militarily and politically.

All of us acknowledge the right of the Israelis to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries, free from threats and acts of force. There can be doubt that the continuing armed harassment of the Galilean population by the PLO and the activities in Southern Lebanon generally have been extremely unhelpful to the already slow progress towards achieving a peaceful settlement, though scarcely sufficient to justify the invasion of Lebanon on the scale that we have witnessed in recent weeks.

This attempt to resolve the Palestinian problem by eliminating the PLO by military means cannot succeed. The Palestinian people espouse self-determination in their homeland in exactly the same way as the Israelis did after the Second World War. The PLO is a symbol of a widespread feeling among Palestinians about the need for a national identity and is the principal instrument for achieving it. The defeat of the PLO in Lebanon will not destroy that purpose. It can only delay its fulfilment, and then possibly only until such time as Arab fundamentalists ensure that relationships between the Arab world and Israel are so soured that the security of Israel is once again seriously threatened.

The question that remains, and will remain after the conflict in Lebanon has ceased, is: how can that Palestinian aspiration be achieved and Israel be guaranteed the security of her State to which she is equally entitled? Similarly, Lebanon is entitled to relief from the conflicts of the last few years, which have destroyed that once prosperous and relatively stable country. How can her security be guaranteed by the international community? What assistance will she require in the difficult task of reconstruction and rehabilitation with which she is faced? I welcomed the Foreign Secretary's assurances that Britain would play a part in that process.

A ceasefire, withdrawal of all foreign forces and the establishment of a secure boundary between Lebanon and Israel must be accepted by all the parties. It would be preferable if that could be guaranteed by the United Nations, if necessary with more adequate forces and additional powers to ensure that a demilitarised zone straddling the border between the two countries is properly enforced. In the absence of Soviet agreement to that course of action, or if there is lack of resolve among other members of the Security Council, some other mutually acceptable multinational force with European elements must be negotiated.

Any British contribution to such a force should be contingent upon progress being made towards some resolution of the West Bank problem which proffers the real hope of self-determination for the Palestinians. In that connection we are bound to ask, not with any sense of hostility towards her, whether Israel is prepared to cease the establishment of further Israeli settlements on the West Bank and to allow the resettlement there of as many Palestinian refugees from Lebanon as are willing to live there in peace.

If that policy were to be pursued as a transitional arrangement for an interim period of five years, there could be the prospect of genuine self-government at the end of that period, which could accommodate the Palestinian aspirations for a national identity within the foreseeable future.

In view of her history and that of Jews throughout the world, Israel should be the first to recognise those aspirations. Israel is now sufficiently strong and established within the region to cast off the understandable insecurities of her past and to look ahead with enthusiasm to the prospects of playing a leading part in the industrial and agricultural development of the Middle East, which would develop naturally if Israel was prepared to accept international guarantees of her sovereignty in return for a homeland for the Palestinian peoples.

Surely, after 33 years of existence, it is time for Israel to show magnanimity and courage, and to face a new future. Britain's interest is undoubtedly to see that all the peoples of the Middle East achieve economic and social development in an environment of freedom, stability and peace Our friendship with Israel and acceptance of her right to secure boundaries, as well as our recognition of the rights of the Palestinians, requires us to play as constructive a part as possible in persuading our American allies and our European partners to work towards the objectives that I have outlined.

11.19 pm

Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, East)

We have had an interesting debate. I listened to most of the speeches. The important factor was that it was a good-tempered debate, although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was subjected to some harassment, which he was well able to handle himself.

The debate has been notable for a large number of condemnations of the Israeli invasion of South Lebanon and the disproportionate nature of the action taken by the Israeli military and defence forces. At this late stage in the evening there is little that my oratory could add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others have said on that subject. I compliment the Foreign Secretary on his speech.

I should like to stress two points. First, Israel has been placed under an obligation by the Security Council to withdraw from the Lebanon. I believe that she ought to do so. Secondly, although we may criticise the Israeli Government, we are not necessarily criticising the Israeli State. There are many voices within Israel urging restraint upon the Israeli Government. The united support for military action which was so obvious in previous campaigns is not present today.

It is a source of some satisfaction on the Opposition Benches that our sister party, the Labour Alliance, which is one of the parties in the Socialist International, has been a leading voice in urging restraint upon the Israeli Government. The Labour Alliance has urged the Israeli Government not to authorise the bombing of citizens and non-combatants, and it has pointed out that the original aims of the operation which was called "Peace in Galilee" had been grossly exceeded and ought not to have been so exceeded. By taking that line the Israeli Labour Alliance has helped to maintain Israeli credibility as a leading democratic State.

Mr. Ernie Ross

I have listened to what my right hon. Friend has just said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made the same claim. I have read every news item and watched every broadcast, and I am still waiting to see the Israeli Labour Party dissociate itself from the national consensus in Israel over the invasion of the Lebanon. It just does not exist.

Mr. Moyle

I shall provide my hon. Friend with the appropriate documentation at a later stage. The immense amount of good will that Israel earned by the evacuation of Sinai has been recklessly squandered. It is natural that we should concentrate on the vast human tragedy in Southern Lebanon; and most speeches have done that.

I am uneasy about the way in which international law has been treated as a result of the crisis in Southern Lebanon. It is easy to sneer at the United Nations. It is obvious that it has little power to affect the position in the face of determined opposition by well-armed forces in any part of the world. The United Nations represents one of humanity's best hopes of building a system of international procedure and law that might lead to the avoidance of war as a method of settling disputes. In any crisis, nations should consider what they might do to build up the authority of the United Nations. We were right to go immediately to the Security Council about the Falkland Islands and obtain a Security Council resolution that authorised any subsequent action that we might take.

I understand Israel's reservations about the United Nations peace keeping force in view of its bitter experience in 1967, when, as soon as the Egyptian forces approached, the United Nations forces pulled up their sticks and disappeared, leaving Israel to be attacked by the Egyptians. The Israelis have gone far beyond those reservations by the action they have taken. They have flouted Security Council resolutions 508 and 509. They rolled over the United Nations interim force in the Lebanon without paying lip-service to the moral authority to which I should have thought a United Nations peacekeeping force was entitled. The Israelis have not served the United Nations well, and it may be that, long after the dead have been buried and regrettably forgotten, that is the casualty that will remain.

Let us hope that the ultimate, gruesome fatuity of a military assault on Beirut will not take place. The Israeli Labour Party is urging that that should not happen as part of its campaign to try to restrain the Israeli Government from bombarding non-combatant populations and concentrations in cities. The Israelis could bombard West Beirut: they have the artillery and jet planes to do so. Bombardments assist conquests, but they will never conquer a territory. They might, however, inflict further gross casualties on the civilian population of Beirut, and that would add to the criticism of the Israeli Government that is expressed in much of the world outside Israel.

If Israel is to acquire West Beirut, it will have to move troops into the Palestinian area. That will mean street fighting. If the Palestinians have any fighting spirit left, the casualties inflicted on the Israeli defence forces in that fighting will exceed those that they have suffered in any of their previous wars in the Middle East. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail.

It is not possible to destroy the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in whatever form it has existed or may exist in future as a result of what has happened in South Lebanon. There is not the divergence of interests between the Palestinians and the PLO which many Israelis sometimes say that they see. That is what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said.

The Palestinians have been disrupted socially and politically and probably they have been destroyed militarily as a result of the activities of the past two weeks. I can understand that the possession of a large number of weapons must have made the Palestinians stand tall in their own sight. However, in the outside world the real importance of the PLO depended not on its weaponry but on its power to speak for Palestinians in the Lebanon, on the West Bank, Gaza, along the Gulf and wherever they happen to be. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) that there are considerable advantages from the Palestinian point of view in the PLO being deprived of its weapons. The possession of a large number of weapons by the Palestinians led them to adopt military postures that attracted a fate that they could not ward off from an army that they could never hurt, no matter how many weapons they acquired, because they would never be in the same league as the Israeli defence forces.

Mr. Lawrence

May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one feature of Conor Cruise O'Brien's article? He observed that if Israel loses just once it will go. Is that not the essential difference between the criticisms that can be made about situations that apply elsewhere in the world and the criticism that is made against the State of Israel, which is terrified of losing one major war?

Mr. Moyle

There is something to be said for that. Of course, it is no longer as valid as it was now that there is a peace treaty with Egypt which gives Israel a secure frontier with the largest Arab State.

Despite what has happened, within a relatively short time the Palestinians will cobble together a social and political organisation, and before long they will again be speaking for the Palestinians in Gaza, on the West Bank, in South Lebanon and along the Gulf.

Obviously the road to a solution of the Lebanese problem depends ultimately on a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But a step along that road and towards immediate peace could well be the restoration of a respected Government in Lebanon. It is important to note that the Lebanese want to try to do this. There is a theory that the Lebanese problem is insoluble so long as the Palestinians remain among them. Palestinian power has been broken, at least temporarily.

Prior to the incursion of the Palestine Liberation Organisation the Lebanese got together a polity and made it work with what can be seen in retrospect to be political genius of a high order. That does not mean that the previous order can be restored now that Palestinian power has gone temporarily. There is a bitterness between many of the factions which has bitten deep in the Lebanon as a result of the events of the last six or seven years. In many cases there is a vested interest in fragmentation which is encrusted. One cannot be optimistic, therefore, about the forming of a respected and authoritative Lebanese Government.

If the operation is to succeed, the international community must help. It is good to know that Israel is doing much to help the civilian relief operation, but the whole of South Lebanon should be treated as a civil disaster area and an international disaster relief operation ought to be mounted. The best way of doing that is to make sure that the relief flows directly into Southern Lebanon through Lebanese ports and is maintained wherever possible by international organisations such as UNRRA and others.

The Israelis, the Lebanese and many others, including the Americans, also want an international peace keeping force. This might be done by the United Nations through an expansion of its existing operation, but the handling of UNIFIL in the last couple of weeks cannot have improved the authority of any peace keeping force of that sort. Therefore, the suggestion has been made that there should be a multinational peacekeeping force outside the control of the United Nations.

There are considerable problems. In an area where fighting is endemic—that distinguishes it from Sinai—which country will be keen to put its young men at risk in the cause of other nations' quarrels? How will the necessary political control and accountability be achieved? If an authoritative Lebanese Government were eventually formed, they might deal with the diplomatic and political control of such a force. For it to emerge from discussions between Israel and America or even from countries in Western Europe would not be easy.

Elsewhere the ripples of the damage are spreading. For instance, President Mubarak, who is the linchpin of the Camp David agreements, does not seem any longer to be so confident that an alliance with the Americans provides him with the strength that he once thought it did, and he is beginning to say so. He is no longer even so confident of his home position. Like many other Arab conservative leaders, he has traded very much on the concluding stages of the Camp David agreement. Many Arabs have been prepared to tolerate what he has been doing because he inherited the situation and could not be expected to turn his hack on the opportunity of re-acquiring Egyptian territory. But now he has been quiet while his brother Arabs in some ways have been attacked by the ally of the United States. His position at home is no longer as secure as it once was as a result.

It has been mentioned in the debate that there may be a general tendency for Arabs in the Middle East to turn to what is happening in Iran. After all, they can say that these shias in Iran can certainly win their battles. What is more, they can tell the United States of America where it gets off and have done so successfully.

The Arab attitude to these situations is very complex indeed. Admittedly, many Arabs were privately quite happy to see the damage that has been done to the PLO. Nobody likes refugees, particularly those who live among them. On the other hand, they have been severely disillusioned at the non-activity of the Americans in failing to act more vigorously to restrain the Israelis.

Arabs tend to reflect considerably on these matters before taking action, but in the long run the shias of Iran may well form a very dangerous force in the Middle East—which, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) pointed out, could be a great danger to our interests in the Middle East.

Whatever happens in Lebanon, I think that the Israelis will eventually wish to return to negotiation on the Camp David process with a view to achieving autonomy. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for whose speech I was unfortunately absent, that the Camp David process should be encouraged. It is all very well to say in Europe that that process is dead, but in the end it will die only when the Egyptians and the Americans become exhausted by attempts to put it into operation—and they are a long way short of that yet. When that happens, as I believe that some day it must—and here I return to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East—I believe that the principles of the Venice declaration and of the Fahd plan must be honed and kept against the day when the Americans, the Egyptians and by then, one hopes, the Israelis want an alternative to the Camp David peace process.

I believe that the events of the past two weeks must be left in the main to the judgment of Israel's neighbours rather than to that of Western Europeans. The Israelis say that they earnestly desire peace with their neighbours, and I see no reason to doubt their sincerity. Most States desire to live in pace if they can, and this must be particularly true in the long term for Israel, which is a tiny State in human terms despite its current military might relative to its neighbours. Indeed, the Israelis have shown in relation to Egypt that once they have a peace treaty they are prepared to go to considerable lengths to see that it is implemented.

Despite appearances, therefore, it is conceivable that "Operation Peace in Galilee" and its extension was meant as a contribution to peace. The judgment as to whether it was such a contribution will be made by Israel's Arab neighbours—not just the Arab world in general, but more specifically by Egyptians and Jordanians, by Lebanese of various factions, by Syrians and by Saudis. The fact that few of those countries have what we would recognise as democratic constitutions should not blind us to the fact that there is such a thing as Arab public opinion and that in the end few Arab leaders can ignore it. Its reaction to the events of the past two or three weeks will therefore be crucial. We can only hope that in the long run, despite expectations, the judgment passed will be charitable.

Meanwhile, the chess board has in effect been thrown from the table on to the floor and the pieces have been scattered. The pieces must now be picked up and rearranged, hopefully, in a better pattern. Arab pride, which has been hammered between Israeli armour and Iranian fanaticism, must be soothed and supported—but how is certainly not clear. Arab moderation must be encouraged, although I do not believe that this has been made any easier than it was before the invasion. Perhaps a new Lebanese Government of authority can be encouraged to grow where the old one withered away, although massive social problems of disruption have now been added to the complex political problems of Southern Lebanon which all the predecessors of such a potential Lebanese Government failed to solve, so one cannot be optimistic on that score either.

The PLO must be encouraged to recognise Israel's right to exist, but, although it has every national reason to do so in self-interest, it has probably not been put into the proper frame of mind by the Israeli attack.

New peacekeeping arrangements must be cobbled together. The suggestion may even be made that British and other Western forces might take part. That road bristles with difficulties, given that it would be unwise to be seen to be colluding with an Israeli invasion and against a background of the rough handling of the existing United Nations peacekeeping force.

Israeli forces must withdraw. It is not easy to foresee their doing this if they remain determined never to allow the PLO or the Palestinians to get anywhere near to Northern Israel. The danger is that Israel will easily end up adding the role of an occupying Power in South Lebanon to that of an occupying Power on the West Bank and Gaza. Many Israelis would be appalled by that prospect, including the Labour alignment in Israel. Above all, the United States must be encouraged to exert its influence on the side of wisdom.

It will not be easy to put these pieces together again in a new pattern, but we must try, because the Middle East is the flashpoint of the world. We cannot be happy while so many people are willing to play with explosives too near oil. If we do not exert ourselves, the situation could be the ruin of us all. Europe cannot act directly on the Middle East. It can only act, as my right hon. Friend said, by acting on the Americans. That is why the risk that the Americans are running to their standing in the Middle East is so worrying to us all.

12.48 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

Most of the debate has, naturally enough, been about the situation in the Lebanon, but there have been references, including a powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), to the anxious situation in the Gulf. I shall start by saying something about that.

Since the Conservative Government were elected in 1979, we have made a big effort to reassure the rulers and the peoples in the Gulf. They are now in no doubt that Britain's friendship for them is lively and energetic and that we are willing to give them help when they need it. We are in close touch with all of them and know at first hand of their anxieties. They know that we are willing to respond in any way that they may require.

They are not anxious to call for American help, partly because of the United States support for Israel, which weighs heavily with some of them, and partly because they do not want to transform their problem into what they do not believe it to be at present—a confrontation between East and West. One can understand that.

The Iranian regime is not at present pro-Soviet. It has been hostile to the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. We have no desire to influence who governs in Tehran. We should like to build, if possible, a reasonable relationship with that Government. Because of that, we hope very much that the Iraq-Iran war can be brought to an end as soon as possible without an Iranian invasion of Iraq. We hope that the Iranians will accept the independence and the crucial importance to the West of our friends in the Gulf.

On the Middle East in general, all those now present have been familiar over the years with the traditional arguments. Tonight's debate has been different. It has been made different by the scale of the suffering now taking place. We have all been conscious of the dramatic events in the Falklands, which have led to the loss of several hundred British and Argentine lives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reminded the House earlier today of the 2,000 victims of terrorism in the Province.

I agree that all figures must be speculative, but from our information I confirm the figures given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Our information from the Red Cross and the Lebanese authorities is that so far up to 14,000 people have died in the fighting in Lebanon and up to 20,000 have been wounded.

Suffering on that scale transcends ordinary arguments, and we have all felt that. The House has shown the strong and deep feelings that events such as these arouse in many of us. The speeches of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) illustrated that eloquently.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), in attempting to explain the Israeli attack, referred to the attack on Ambassador Argov. Many of us know, like and respect Mr. Argov. We were all horrified by the brutal attack on him and wish him full recovery. I expect that the attack will be a matter of legal proceedings, and obviously I cannot say more about it. I am a little surprised that others in this country, knowing our legal procedures, should have been so quick to publish their verdicts.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West correctly told us that there is a web of international terrorism, and Israel has been one of the chief sufferers, although not the only one. Eleven PLO officials have been assassinated in five different places since 1979 and seven others have been seriously injured in assassination attempts, including the mayor of Nablus, whom many of us know.

The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) made a compelling speech, but gave some credence to the notion that the settlements in North Galilee were under constant rocket attack in recent times. They were in earlier times and have been occasionally very recently. However, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, according to our information there was no shelling of these settlements from 24 July 1981—the date of the ceasefire—until 9 May 1982, when for the second time the Israelis bombed Beirut and the PLO responded.

I think that I have said enough about that to suggest that the measured comments that we and our partners in the Ten have made about these events are abundantly justified.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), who is usually fair in debate, was driven a bit hard tonight. His criticisms of my right hon. Friend and the comparison that he drew between the Israeli action and our own in the Falklands was well wide of the mark. There are some small differences. We were repossessing our own territory, whereas they are invading the territory of others. We were asserting the right of self-determination, whereas they are denying it.

I should like to make several detailed points which may be of interest to the House, some of which have been raised. We are very much concerned about the safety of the British community in the Lebanon. We have arranged for a British merchant ship now in Cyprus to arrive in the Lebanese port of Jounié early on 24 June to pick up United Kingdom and Commonwealth nationals who wish to leave the Lebanon. The BBC is broadcasting to that effect, and I hope that those concerned who wish to leave the Lebanon at this time will take advantage of the opportunity that we are providing. The Ambassador, Mr. Roberts, and his staff remain in West Beirut for the time being.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, during his excellent speech, asked a specific question about the treatment of prisoners. The Belgian Presidency, on behalf of the Ten, asked the Israelis on 14 June for a number of assurances. One was that the relevant Geneva conventions would be applied in Israeli-occupied Lebanon, especially with regard to prisoners. We have not yet received a reply to those representations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and a number of other hon. Members asked about measures against Israel following our criticism of what it had done. He knows that the signing of the second financial protocol has been postponed and that the postponement decision has been confirmed. The Government have withdrawn an invitation that had been issued to the Israelis to attend the British Army equipment exhibition which began yesterday. Other measures have been, and are being, considered, but decisions have not yet been taken. I cannot say more about that now.

I come to the central issue and to the pertinent remarks of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), based on his experience, and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). They reminded us, correctly, of the advantages of the autonomy process. There can be nothing wrong with the principle involved or with the actual ideas in the agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) gave the details. There is the idea of an interim period of self-government, followed by determination of the future of the occupied territories. The negotiations between the three States are bogged down, not least because the Israeli interpretation of autonomy is now substantially different from that put forward at the time of the agreement and that put forward by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and understood by President Carter and by both Egyptian Presidents who have been involved. That is one of the main reasons why the talks have not made progress recently.

One of the underlying difficulties is that autonomy, by definition, and self-government, by definition, require the participation of the Palestinians who live in the areas concerned. For one reason or another—different people have different analyses—that has not been forthcoming. It is a matter of judgment whether that participation will be easier or less easy after what has happened. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East quoted a speech by the mayor of Bethlehem. Many of us have met the mayor and know him to be a passionate moderate. It did not seem to be the mayor's view that things would be easier in that regard after what has happened in the Lebanon. Time will show whether he spoke truly.

It seems to the Government that there are three problems that can to some extent be separated. There is the immediate problem of Beirut. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) about bringing the killing to an end and preventing fresh killing. We support what the United States and Mr. Habib are attempting in that regard. There is the problem of Lebanon itself. I noted particularly the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South. There is the need to rebuild houses, hospitals and schools, in which we shall all, rightly, be involved.

There is also the need, if we can, to help the Lebanese to rebuild the consensus by which Lebanon alone can survive, free of illegitimate foreign pressure, from wherever it comes. It is right, as a matter of history, to say that the consensus was badly cracked before the PLO came to Lebanon. Nevertheless, I believe that it is only through such consensus that Lebanon can be governed. I also believe, from what I hear and read, that this is the overpowering wish of almost everyone who is Lebanese. Perhaps, indirectly, we can help in that regard.

The problem that has occupied the House for most of the time is that of the Palestinians. It is, of course, possible to kill a lot of Palestinians. But no one in the House believes in the idea that one can thus remove the Palestinian question from the agenda. I should have thought that any such idea would be deeply repulsive, because it is deeply familiar to the Jewish people.

We have no illusions about the PLO. It has not taken the advice which we, and previous Governments no doubt, have given. It has not clearly abandoned talk of an armed struggle. It has missed some chances to show unequivocally and in public that it is willing to accept Israel once Israel accepts Palestinian rights. It had an opportunity at the time of discussion of the Fahd plan, which started well but did not materialize. There are quotations one way and quotations the other way, and the total effect is muffled and unclear.

We all accept—even, I think, the Palestinians would accept—that it would be better if the Palestinians were not in Lebanon. But where would they go? Are they to wander for ever round the Middle East, carrying their burden of bitterness, and tempted more and more to violence as they find that political doors are closed? They will not forget the towns and villages from which they sprang and which are now occupied. That is human nature. They have rights, and the denial of those rights is one—though not the only—cause of instability in the Middle East.

We cannot and do not wish to impose a settlement. How can we? All that we can do is to set out principles—as we tried to do at Venice, and in my view they have worn well—which we believe are a necessary part of a settlement. All that we can do is to edge those concerned to the extent that we can towards the negotiating table, to encourage those in the area who wish to talk, and to discourage those who wish to kill.

The basis on which peace could be—and I still hope will be—found is fairly clear. It is the basis which my hon. Friend the Member for Melton set out in his own words. They are not the words which I would choose, but the basis is clear. It is a basis of territories for peace. That is the basis of resolution 242, which is still the key Security Council text in this regard. It was the basis of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, to which tribute has been paid, under which the Israelis evacuated Sinai at some sacrifice and in return secured peace with Egypt.

Of course, it is more difficult for Israel to apply that principle of territories for peace as one gets closer to the heartland of Israel. It is more difficult to apply that principle on the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. There is a choice for Israel. It is a remarkably difficult choice for her, and one with which we must sympathise. Is she to base her security on buffer zones and occupied territories, whose inhabitants are oppressed and denied their rights, accompanied perhaps by punitive expeditions to chase the Palestinians yet further from her borders? Or is she to respect the values on which I understand the State of Israel is based and grant to others the rights which Israelis quite properly claim for themselves?

If the Israelis take the second choice and accept that Palestinians have political rights and that those rights can be exercised only on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and if she were ready to take that giant leap—let no one here in the security of this House underestimate the difficulty of making that leap—she would be entitled to turn to the international community and require arrangements to be made to provide for security, demilitarisation, international guarantees, international forces, and perhaps special status for Jerusalem.

I give those simply as illustrations. There has been no shortage of ideas on all these matters over the years. They gather dust in the cupboards of every major Foreign Office in the world. Ingenious ideas are not lacking to deal with those important practical matters. What is missing is the hard decision of principle. Once the principle is decided, the arrangements can follow. That acceptance of the principle is a long way off this evening, but I am sure that it is in that direction that those concerned must go.

We must not be patronising or overestimate our influence. We have an influence and we have found during the past three years that that influence is greater when it is exerted with our partners in the Ten.

The United States has a much greater influence and we have a responsibility to expound our ideas to it and to keep in close touch. It is not always a question of saying the same thing and making the same proposals at the same time, but of avoiding any contradictions and trying to work in harmony with it.

So we take the practical but also, I believe, principled approach that was started at Venice, although it was misunderstood and, to a large extent, rejected in Israel, and which I believe is valid—

It being Twelve o' clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.