HC Deb 26 May 1999 vol 332 cc327-34 1.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)

May I start by warmly welcoming the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), to his new position. I am sure that he will have a fascinating time as he familiarises himself with the important issues with which he will have to deal, not least Britain's vital interests in the middle east, which are of cardinal importance to this country. All those who are interested in the affairs of the middle east, from whatever position they may come, hope that the Minister will energetically pursue those matters, using the considerable expertise that he will have at his disposal to work with our many friends in the region.

I am grateful for the opportunity of a short debate to focus with renewed urgency on the situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories—the core of the middle east conflict for the past 50 years, and a dangerous time bomb.

Last year, Israel celebrated its 50th birthday, led by a Government who had defiantly set their face against the peace process and who had succeeded only in creating a new diplomatic freeze in the region. Prime Minister Netanyahu based his leadership on the unforgivable and dangerous premise that Israel could achieve lasting peace with its neighbours without making any significant concessions itself. It is to be hoped that the outcome of the Israeli general elections last week, with the resounding defeat of the rejectionist right, is at least in part an acknowledgement that that formula has failed.

I am sure that I will be joined by many in congratulating Ehud Barak on his historic win, and in reminding him of the great expectations that his victory has aroused around the world for real and sustainable progress in the middle east peace process. This is, therefore, an appropriate and sensible time to take stock of how best to capitalise on the changed political leadership in Israel, and how to support all those who are genuinely interested in pushing the peace process forward.

It is clear that, for a long time, the Israelis have been fighting a losing battle in Lebanon. Not only has the local southern Lebanese population been forced to endure years of misery and terror, but the Israeli forces of occupation have experienced a high toll of military casualties. Mr. Barak's announcement on the eve of his election victory that he was committing himself to doing everything to take the army out of Lebanon within a year is, therefore, welcome news.

However, it is of the utmost importance that withdrawal from Lebanon is but a part of a broader agreement and settlement between Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Before his tragic death in 1995, the late Yitzhak Rabin was involved in negotiations with the Syrian Government, which were reported to be close to reaching agreement on Israeli withdrawal from occupied Syrian territory. The Syrians will accept nothing less than total withdrawal from the Golan heights. That must be moved forward and the earlier talks built on.

The House will recall the recent excellent European Union declaration on the middle east peace process which came from the Berlin summit in March this year and merits particular attention. The declaration states: The European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state, and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto. The European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security … The European Union declares its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian State in due course". At this critical time, the European Union has boldly and correctly placed emphasis on Palestinian rights to self-determination as not just inalienable, but as one of the most critical elements of a sustainable peace in the region.

I am sure that hon. Members will join me in giving full support to the statement by the EU, and in assuring hon. Members who support the state of Israel that it must not be seen as an anti-Israel document. Indeed, it is fundamentally the reverse. Over the past three years, the Likud Government in Israel sought to deal with the knotty and painful requirements of the peace process by reducing Palestinian expectations of what they could hope to achieve through negotiation, and then by delivering even less. The statement by the EU is important because it reminds us that the Palestinian right to self-determination is not reducible—rather, a settlement must be achieved that seeks to realise and incorporate those rights.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a negotiated peace, as expressed in the European statement, is absolutely vital, and will he condemn the showering of northern Israel with rockets by Hezbollah, which occurred on the eve of the election of the Labour-led Government in Israel?

Mr. Soames

I agree with the hon. Lady that the only way in which to bring this painful, terrifying and extremely difficult problem to a conclusion is by negotiation. I have no doubt that, over the years, both sides have behaved thoroughly reprehensibly, but the behaviour of the Israeli Government in negotiation is not an elevating example.

The beginning of May this year marked the end of the five-year interim period of the Oslo peace agreement signed by Prime Minister Rabin and President Arafat in Cairo in 1994. Much has happened in that time, but everyone agrees that the Oslo peace process has so far failed to live up to expectations. Interestingly, however, there is now more serious talk than ever before of the inevitability of a Palestinian state.

Many hon. Members have had the opportunity in the past five years to travel to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and to see the changing situation on the ground in the west bank and Jerusalem. Settlement activity, particularly under the Likud Government, has increased at a dreadful and spectacular pace. The west bank, which in the minds of the international community is to be the basic shape of any future Palestinian state, has been totally and grotesquely disfigured by the ever-increasing settler population, and significantly also by the swathes of land that have been taken to create new settlement roads that run from east to west to provide quick and easy access for the settlers into Israel.

Palestinian land and, therefore, Palestinian life in the west bank have become internally dislocated. The relentless growth of settlements and the confiscation of land for the exclusive use of the settler population have done profound and great damage to the quest for a viable Palestinian national economy, and to the legitimate Palestinian objectives of justice, security, peace and prosperity.

This scenario is not consistent with what we envisage when we speak of Palestinian rights to statehood, or the hopes that we had of the Oslo peace agreement. I remind hon. Members that it was the settlement of Har Homa that, two years ago, brought the peace process to a halt. At the very least, and as an act of good faith, the incoming Labour Government in Israel will, I hope, halt the building on that sensitive and highly symbolic settlement as a matter of priority, and will not allow it to continue to provide a festering focus of conflict between the Palestinian and the Israeli peoples. Incidentally, the settlements represent not only a moral and political crime, but a high aesthetic crime and should, therefore, be trebly condemned.

In article 1 of the 1949 fourth Geneva convention, the high contracting parties undertook to

respect and ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances. In response to escalating Israeli violations of several key components of the convention—notably, those protecting the Palestinian population against illegal settlement policies, detention practices, the use of state-sanctioned torture and Israel's unilateral annexation of occupied Jerusalem—a conference of the high contracting parties has been convened. It will take place on 15 July in Geneva. It is to be hoped that Britain, together with its EU partners, will build on the positive spirit of the Berlin declaration by incorporating the Palestinian right of self-determination into the proceedings.

There is absolutely no doubt that Israeli settlement activity provokes bitter and wholly understandable resentment among the Palestinian population of the west bank and the Gaza strip, and it is a source of daily confrontation. I should like to think that, here in Europe, we differ substantially from the United States of America on that issue. Although the Americans—mystifyingly, but under the heel of the Zionist lobby—tend to view settlements as an annoying obstacle, we in Europe are absolutely clear that they are entirely illegal and that there can be no real peace while they continue to be built.

Mrs. Ellman

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames

No, I will not.

I remind hon. Members that, unforgivably, 19 new settlements have been started in occupied Palestinian territory since last year's Wye memorandum was drawn up. We must hope, therefore, that we will see an end to the persistent, wilful and illegal defiance by Israel of international humanitarian law. When we talk of a democratic Palestinian state, we should think of a contiguous land mass with free international borders within which Palestinian citizens can move without restriction.

It is, therefore, clear that the current map of the west bank—where Palestinian land has been chopped up into many small areas by the configuration of settlements and settlement roads, and has been dislocated internally and totally disconnected from the centre in Jerusalem—cannot deliver viable statehood. A great wrong has been done to the Palestinian people by those actions.

In an interview last week, Faisal Huseyni, the respected Palestinian official responsible for Jerusalem affairs said: Palestine for us is Jerusalem and Jerusalem consists of the old city and not the holy places only. This is our history, our existence and our identity. Those who give up their identity give up their future. The Palestinian people will be dispersed if there is nothing to unite them. Jerusalem, our capital, unites all of us. There can be no doubt about the strength of feeling about Jerusalem in the minds of the Palestinians and the Israelis. In deference to that strength of feeling and the difficulties ahead, we should reiterate our belief in the status of Jerusalem as it is protected by international law, which will act as the only meaningful bulwark against those parties that are trying to establish total power and control in Jerusalem. I remind the House that the Oslo agreements committed the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem as part of the final status negotiations, and we expect and hope that the incoming Israeli Government will make good that commitment.

I must remark again on the tremendous outpourings of joy, in Israel and beyond, at the election last week of Ehud Barak. The Palestinian National Authority and President Arafat expressed optimism that meaningful peace negotiations, including those dealing with final status issues, can resume and will be able to reach a just solution. We in Britain and in Europe have an obligation to support actively and constructively the on-going process of Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking, and to make good use of our extensive influence and expertise in these matters.

I urge the Minister not to allow himself to be blindly dragooned into following solely the United States on this issue, but to build on the excellent independent European Union declaration. Peace in the middle east is in the interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians and all those living in the region.

1.43 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)

I thank the hon. Member for Mid–Sussex (Mr. Soames) for his kind words at the start of the debate. He lobbied me assiduously when I held my previous responsibilities and I am sure that I am grateful that, within a week of my taking on new responsibilities, he is raising with me questions relating to them.

I very much welcome the debate and the opportunity to clarify Government policy on the question of an independent Palestinian state. The debate is timely, because there is a new Prime Minister-elect in Israel. Ehud Barak has made clear his commitment to the peace process that began in Madrid in 1991, and of which the Oslo accords and interim agreement form a vital part. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary sent messages immediately after Mr. Barak's election, congratulating him on his stunning success and wishing him well in building a coalition.

A number of issues arise which have to be dealt with. First, what is the current state of play in the peace process? The question of statehood is inextricably bound up with progress on the peace process, and it is appropriate to start there. The Government look forward to a relaunch of the peace process and we hope that, once a Government have been formed in Israel, both parties will proceed with implementation of the Wye memorandum. In particular, we hope that Israel will proceed with the second further redeployment of troops in the west bank. That will, we hope, open the way to the resumption of final status negotiations, but, in the meantime, we must allow Mr. Barak the necessary space and time to form his Government.

The United Kingdom played a leading role in the negotiation of the Berlin European Council declaration of 25 March on the middle east peace process. In it, we called on both parties to reaffirm their commitments to the basic principles, including "land for peace", established within the framework of Madrid, Oslo and the subsequent agreements, in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. We called for an early resumption of final status negotiations in the coming months on an accelerated basis and for those to be brought to a prompt conclusion, not prolonged indefinitely. We stated our belief that it should be possible to conclude the negotiations within a target period of one year and we expressed our readiness to work to facilitate an early conclusion to the negotiations. That is the position of the European Union and of the Government on the negotiations.

The active involvement of the United States is also crucial to the success of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. We therefore welcome American readiness, which was confirmed by a White House statement of 26 April, to help to launch final status negotiations once an Israeli Government have been formed, and to review and monitor their progress. The United States has also made it clear that it is prepared, with the consent of the parties, to bring them together within six months to review the status of their efforts and to facilitate reaching an agreement.

All Members will know that the issues remaining to be negotiated—the final status issues—are the most intractable. They are, notably, borders; the status of Jerusalem; arrangements for the refugees from conflicts dating back to 1948; what to do about settlements in the west bank; security arrangements; and, in practice, rights over the fresh water in the region. Under the interim agreement, negotiations on those issues were to have concluded by 4 May of this year. In fact, they have never really started, but there is now a real prospect of progress and that is why it is vital that all parties refrain from any unilateral acts that attempt to prejudge or predetermine the outcome of negotiations on final status issues.

The Government have condemned all such unilateral acts, by either side. For example, they have condemned the continuing building of settlements in the west bank and urged the Israeli Government to cease supporting such activity. That is also why the Government have urged the Palestinians not to make a unilateral declaration of independence. Such a unilateral act would be likely to threaten the prospects for a negotiated peace.

I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will accept it from me that the Government's position on Palestinian statehood is as stated in the Berlin declaration. We agreed that the European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state, and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto. The European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and Israel's acceptance as an equal partner in the region. The European Union declares its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian State in due course in accordance with these basic principles". That statement contains five key elements relevant to our debate. First, we declare our support for the peace process and call for an early resumption of final status negotiations on an accelerated basis. We declare our view that it should be possible to conclude those negotiations within a year, and we urge Israel and the Palestinians to refrain from activities that prejudge the outcome of the final status negotiations and from any activity contrary to international law.

Secondly, we emphasise that the Palestinians have an unqualified right to self-determination, including the option of a state, and that that right of self-determination is not subject to any veto. However, it may not be in their overall interest unilaterally to declare statehood at this stage.

Thirdly, we renew our appeal to the parties to come to a negotiated solution. We do that because we are convinced that agreement is the best route forward for both sides. Only through negotiation and agreement with the Arab countries can Israel guarantee security and acceptance as an equal partner in the Middle East. Only through negotiation and agreement with Israel could a Palestinian state be viable and secure from the start. That reflects the realities on the ground—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman).

Fourthly, we have made it clear that we are ready to consider the recognition of a Palestinian state in due course in accordance with the principles that we have stated. We consider that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination and that, looking at the situation on the ground, we consider statehood to be the best guarantee of peace in the region. However, only a negotiated statehood will guarantee peace: that is what we urge on the parties.

Finally—and it is an important element—we call for an early resumption of negotiation on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks of the peace process. Because we are seeking peace in the region, that will be achieved only when Israel has negotiated peace with all her neighbours. Israel has a negotiated peace with Egypt and with Jordan. We now look for a negotiated peace between Israel and Syria and Lebanon, as well as between Israel and the Palestinians. We very much welcome Ehud Barak's stated wish to have withdrawn troops from south Lebanon and to be in detailed negotiations with the Syrians within a year.

The hon. Member for Mid–Sussex used the phrase "viable statehood". It is necessary to consider the criteria that we would normally apply in deciding questions of recognition.

We do not in general consider a formal process of recognition to be a useful and constructive tool of foreign policy. Clearly, however, if a Palestinian state seeks membership of the United Nations, we shall have to consider whether to admit that state.

In customary international law, four basic criteria are considered when issues of recognition arise. These are whether the entity in question has a defined territory, a permanent population, a Government able to exercise effective control over the state's territory, and independence in its external relations.

It seems clear that, at present, the Palestinian authority satisfies these criteria only in part. There is clearly a permanent population, but control of its territory and independence in its external relations are evidently far from absolute. Statehood itself is not specified as a final status issue, but if the Palestinians were to declare a state now, the situation could be unstable and the newly declared state's qualification for recognition under the four criteria might actually be weakened. A unilateral declaration of independence would certainly destroy the currently good prospects for the peace process. That is why we urge the Palestinians to refrain from any such declaration, and to commit themselves fully to the negotiations.

In the Berlin declaration, we make it clear that any state should be democratic, viable and peaceful. That element of the declaration should not be ignored. On any sensible analysis, the early viability of any state is likely to be vastly increased if it has come into being through negotiation and agreement. Although the Palestinians have made substantial progress towards democracy under difficult circumstances, they still have a long way to go.

To conclude, the Government want there to be a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. We hope that, following the Israeli elections—and once the new government has been formed in Israel—we may have the best opportunity for such negotiations. The current peace process offers by far the best opportunity for such a peace. The Palestinians have the right of self-determination, including the option of a state, but we urge all parties to refrain from unilateral acts that would prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations, and we urge all parties to commit themselves to those negotiations.

Looking at the situation at present, we believe that the best solution for all parties is likely to be a democratic, viable, peaceful and sovereign Palestinian state, arrived at through negotiations.

The key word is "negotiation". The prospects for a negotiated peace are better now than for several years. We have stated our willingness to help in any way we can. We welcome the confirmation by the United States of its readiness to relaunch final status negotiations. We urge all parties to seize this opportunity and to commit themselves wholly to those negotiations.

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

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.