Middle East (Hansard, 9 November 1983)

§ 6. Mr. Ernie Ross
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress Her Majesty's Government are making towards the achievement of peace in the middle east.

§ Mr. Luce
We are deeply concerned at the lack of progress in solving the acute problems of the middle east. It must be for the parties themselves to take the lead in finding solutions, but we are doing all that we can to help. We will continue to work for a just and comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute. We are supporting all efforts to bring about national reconciliation and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Lebanon, and we are ready to play a constructive role in bringing an end to the Iran-Iraq war.

§ Mr. Ernie Ross
The entire House hopes for the success of the Geneva peace talks. Nevertheless, although they are vital to the future of the Lebanon, they do not address themselves to the core of the middle east problem, which is the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. What positive action do the Government intend to take, at United Nations level, European level or any other level, to tackle the core of the middle east problem?

§ Mr. Luce
As I said, it is for the parties involved to take the lead in resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. They must live with it day by day, but we stand ready as a Government, and in conjunction with the Community, to do whatever we can to help. We strongly support the Venice declaration of 1980, and we believe that the Reagan plan is the best basis upon which to move forward. I found considerable support for that proposal. We shall be as active as possible in trying to obtain some progress in the matter.

§ Mr. Latham
When my hon. Friend met the three middle eastern leaders, did he make it clear that the Government support the 17 May agreement between Israel and the Lebanon which was negotiated by our American allies?

§ Mr. Luce
We accept that this agreement was entered into by two independent Governments—the Lebanese and the Israeli Governments—and the security of the state of Israel is a fundamental and critical point for them. These matters will be discussed at Geneva. It would not be helpful to say anything else now.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell
Do the Government understand that self-determination is meaningless apart from territory?

§ Mr. Luce
If the right to self-determination for the Palestinians is not fulfilled, in whatever way the parties involved agree, the Arab-Israeli dispute will continue. There will be more violence, and that will be contrary to the interests of not only Israel and the Arab countries, but Western countries.

§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
Does my hon. Friend agree that neither retribution nor revenge is part of the role of the peacekeeping force? If so, does it not follow that if one element of a multinational force indulges in such activities the British contingent should be withdrawn?

§ Mr. Luce
I do not believe that it is right to contemplate the withdrawal of the British contingent. A separate question on the Lebanon will follow shortly, and it may be of more help if I reserve my comments on that matter until then. I do not think that retribution is the objective. Our objective is to seek, by whatever means possible, support for reconciliation in the Lebanese and other disputes, and all our efforts should be concentrated on that.

§ Mr. Douglas
Will the Minister concede that the activities of the multinational force should be restricted to the Beirut area? Therefore, any activity by the United States to seek retribution should be strongly resisted by the British Government, who should tell the Americans that we are not in harmony with that desire?

§ Mr. Luce
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, multinational forces have an absolute right to self-defence. No one would deny that. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the mandate confines the terms of reference of the British contribution of 100 soldiers to Beirut city, the patrolling of that area and the guarding of the ceasefire commission.

§ Mr. Amery
I strongly support the general line outlined by my hon. Friend, but he said that we would stand by the Venice declaration. Does he recall that that suggested involving the PLO in future negotiations? Does that not seem somewhat unrealistic in present circumstances?

§ Mr. Luce
My right hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to state that the two cardinal principles in that declaration are what matter. The first is the absolute right of the state of Israel to exist within secure boundaries—something to which we are strongly committed. The second is our belief that a peaceful solution will not be achieved unless the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination. Those two points are of cardinal importance.

§ Mr. George Robertson
The Minister said that the best hope for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict lay within the Reagan plan. That view would be shared by the Israeli Labour Opposition. However, did any of the Israeli Government officials whom he met also subscribe to that view?

§ Mr. Luce
I discussed fully with the Israeli Government and the leaders of the Labour party in Israel their respective views about the position in the middle east and how we could move forward. It is not for me to interpret their views. However, I picked up a distinct 293 variety of views within Israel as to how things should move forward. I attach the highest priority to a continuous and regular dialogue with the Israeli Government—and there is much that we have in common as well as that which divides us—but we have a strong difference of opinion about their settlement policy on the West Bank. I stated that strongly to the Israeli Government.