§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on recent developments in Israel and the occupied territories, specifically in relation to Hebron, Bethlehem and Jenin, and to the better news involving a UK contribution to ending the siege of President Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah.
Since the House last debated this subject on 16 April, the situation in Israel and the occupied territories has remained very tense. On Saturday, after four Israelis, including a five-year-old child, were killed in the west bank settlement of Adora, the Israeli defence forces moved into the nearby town of Hebron. There have been reports that at least seven Palestinians have been killed there and 20 injured in the fighting that followed.
At the same time, the stand-off continues at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where 200 Palestinians, some of them armed, have taken refuge from the Israeli forces for the last three weeks. Three of the Palestinians inside the church compound have been shot dead by Israeli forces, including one last night.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has raised his concerns at the situation with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, as have leaders of many other denominations and faiths. However, talks between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are under way in an attempt to resolve the situation. Nine Palestinians have already left the church compound. I understand that several dozen more Palestinian civilians may shortly leave, and that there will be deliveries of food to those who remain inside.
During the debate on 16 April, many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed their concerns at reports alleging that the Israeli military had used disproportionate force during its action in the refugee camp at Jenin, which began on 3 April. At our instigation, the United Nations Security Council on 19 April agreed resolution 1405, which welcomed the initiative of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to send a fact-finding team to Jenin to establish what had happened.
Following that resolution, the Secretary-General appointed a team led by Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and including Sadako Ogata, the former UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Cornelio Sommaruga, the former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross; Bill Nash, a retired American major-general; and Peter Fitzgerald, a senior Irish police officer. At General Nash's request, Lieutenant-Colonel Miles Wade, a serving officer in the British Army, has been added to the team.
However, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my serious concern that. 10 days after Israel first agreed to that fact-finding mission, it has yet to be admitted to Jenin. During the meeting of the Israeli Cabinet yesterday, further objections were raised to the arrangements for the team's visit. Let me repeat what I said last night to Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: Israel must co-operate without delay with the UN team in order to establish the facts. The Israeli Government have claimed that their action in Jenin was necessary and 668 proportionate. If that is so, they have nothing to fear and much to gain from such a fact-finding mission composed of such distinguished and internationally respected individuals.
Potentially the most positive development over the weekend was the acceptance in principle by Israel and the Palestinian Authority of a US-UK initiative to allow the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to leave his compound in Ramallah, which has been under siege continuously since 29 March. Under the terms of that initiative, Israeli forces would pull back from President Arafat's compound, and from Ramallah itself, and leave him free to travel both within the occupied territories and elsewhere, and free to return.
At the same time, six Palestinian men would be removed from the compound to a Palestinian facility in a secluded location in the occupied territories. Of these six, four have been convicted by the Palestinian Authority for involvement in the murder last October of Israeli Cabinet Minister Rehavam Zeevi. One is secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the group that claimed responsibility for Minister Zeevi's killing, and one is being detained because of alleged involvement in the Karine A arms shipment in January.
Under this initiative, Britain and the United States have agreed to provide a small number of supervisory wardens to oversee the men's detention. The wardens will be unarmed. Let me make this clear: it is the prime responsibility on the Palestinian Authority to ensure the physical security of the facility and the personal security of the United States and United Kingdom wardens.
A British scoping mission visited the region last month. An advance party of experts from the United Kingdom is due to arrive in the region this afternoon to begin to set the detailed arrangements in place and to satisfy themselves as to the personal safety of the wardens. The United Kingdom wardens all have experience of working in similar capacities with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The proposal was first put to the Israeli Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in early October last year. I drew it to the attention of the House again in our last debate 13 days ago.
I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work of United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, of others in the Bush Administration and of American and British diplomats in Israel and the occupied territories who have helped to achieve the progress that we have made. However, there is still much work to be done to bring this initiative into effect. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing the hope that no last-minute hitches occur and that these arrangements can be put in place with all dispatch.
This is a significant step forward, but on its own it is not enough. It is now imperative that the two sides build on this modest measure of agreement, stop the violence and start talking to one another. In a series of resolutions in recent months, the Security Council has laid down clear imperatives on both parties. Both are obliged to move to a meaningful ceasefire and to resume security co-operation. Israel should withdraw from Palestinian-controlled areas and must heed Security Council demands. Once he has been released from the siege, President Arafat will plainly be able to exercise a much enhanced political leadership of the Palestinian Authority. He must take that 669 opportunity and do all in his power to stop the violence and work for peace. Ministers and officials have been in constant touch with both sides to the conflict to stress the need for a constructive approach.
The Government's commitment to helping restart a peace process is absolute. The same unity of purpose exists throughout the international community, but the hopes and expectations of a generation of Israelis and of Palestinians rest, above all, on the shoulders of two men—Prime Minister Sharon and President Arafat. Now is the time for them to grasp the opportunity that international efforts have created and to demonstrate that they are truly committed to peace.
§ Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)I welcome today's announcement of the decision to send British and United States monitors to Ramallah to guard the six Palestinian detainees and thus to enable the Israeli siege of Chairman Arafat's headquarters to be lifted. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House so promptly with details of what is involved. It is, as he says, a small but significant step in the essential process of restoring dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and moving gradually back towards acceptance of the Tenet ceasefire plan and the Mitchell proposals for resuming the peace process. I congratulate President Bush and the British Government on their part in building this small but important bridge.
There will he concerns, however, that our involvement should be carefully planned and suitably restrained. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that this small deployment is not the forerunner of any larger peacekeeping or nation-building deployment being planned for the future?
We must all be aware of the importance of today's announcement. It is in the building of such small bridges, rather than in grand gestures, grandstanding conferences or veiled threats, that progress can be made to turn back from the staircase of violence on which the middle east has recently been embarked and, in doing this, to set out once more on the route that can lead to agreement on the establishment of two states west of the Jordan: the state of Israel, secure within acceptable boundaries, and a viable, economically sustainable and independent Palestinian state. This bridge is important. I hope that it will be followed by other steps, not least in Bethlehem.
Today's development in Ramallah must go hand in hand with the continuing and urgent need for Israel to cease the military incursions into the territories. If, however, Israel is to withdraw with confidence that her security from vicious acts of terrorism will not once again be compromised, there must be clear indications that the use of the territories as a base for the preparation, equipping and delivery of terrorist acts will be ended. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that is primarily a challenge for Chairman Arafat and that, as President Bush has stated, his newly regained freedom of movement must be accompanied by the delivery of a genuine cessation of violence on the Palestinian side? This must now be a test of his leadership.
Many, while doubting Chairman Arafat's desire to deliver a lasting peace and settlement, still see him as I do: as the only effective Palestinian leader with whom real negotiations can be held. He must respond to today's settlement by both condemning and actively thwarting terrorist activities and by showing a real willingness to 670 re-engage on all the elements that were on the table at both Camp David and Taba. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me, however, that if Mr. Arafat is genuinely to deliver leadership in that regard, he will require assistance in rebuilding the civic structures through which he can operate in terms of law and order? Can the Foreign Secretary indicate what help is likely to be forthcoming to enable him to do so and, at the same time, what precautions will be taken to ensure that any financial aid given is not siphoned off into support for terrorist organisations and plans? In the same context, what conversations has he had with the Israeli Government about the retained Palestinian revenues?
These are delicate but vital matters on which both sides need clear assurances if the confidence to move back towards the talks table is to be established. In that context, can the Foreign Secretary report on what steps he is taking to persuade other Arab states to support today's initiative? If Mr. Arafat either cannot or will not deliver the cessation of violence and terrorist activity within the territories, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support other initiatives that can produce the same required levels of security?
The positive step forward today in Ramallah is a small ray of light in an otherwise dark and frightening scene. It is only a first step, but it is a well-grounded one. As we know, every journey begins with the first step. This journey is about confidence on both sides, which is hard to build when the truth on which it must rely is too often distorted on all sides. It is therefore vital for both the Palestinians and Israel that truth is established openly and fairly, not least in relation to what happened in Jenin and the reasons for it. I join the Foreign Secretary in urging that the truth be established swiftly through the United Nations, on a fair and acceptable basis.
May I finally and seriously ask the Foreign Secretary to reflect that, on the same day on which the President of the European Commission is in Oxford disparaging the usefulness of Anglo-American relations, the joint efforts of the United Kingdom and the USA have begun to deliver, as they so often have in the past, showing once again the value of that unique relationship?
Today is a better day. It carries a positive step towards peace. We must all wish it well.
§ Mr. StrawI thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for welcoming the initiative. It is extremely important for those people from the UK who participate in it to know that they go there with the support of the whole House and all the parties represented in it.
Our involvement is being carefully planned. As I explained, we preceded this stage by an earlier scoping measure and visit, which was obviously contingent on agreement. I should also say, as I said in my statement, that it is possible that there will be last-minute hitches, although we hope not—such is the nature of events in the middle east. All of us are working with the United States to ensure that those do not arise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether this is a forerunner of any larger deployment. It is not, in itself. He asked whether any deployments are currently actively planned, and the answer is no. However, as I made clear in my speech to the House on 16 April, if and when peace develops in any greater depth, in our judgment, there will be a greater role for such people and perhaps, down the 671 track, for an international force, and none of us should rule that out. As I explained to the House on 16 April, our policy is very clear: there should be two states, a secure state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine, consistent with the clear decisions of a sequence of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the most important recent one of which is 1397.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the importance of Israel ceasing its incursions into the occupied territories. I accept also what he says about the responsibility that now rests on the shoulders of President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. That is why I made the point that as soon as he is released from his siege, he will in practice be able to exercise a much higher degree of leadership and authority over the Palestinians and the Authority, and it is incumbent on him to do so in a responsible way.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether there are plans afoot to provide further assistance for rebuilding the facilities of the Palestinian Authority and, indeed, those on the west bank as a whole. The answer is yes, and there have been very detailed discussions with colleague Ministers in the European Union. This time last week, I was at a two-day meeting in Valencia of what is called EuroMed, an EU-Mediterranean states meeting, which was completely dominated by the middle east crisis. So far as I am aware, EuroMed is the only forum attended by representatives of both the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority, and, after some difficulty, they stayed in the same room for what turned out to be a poignant but very important discussion. I also saw the new Japanese Foreign Minister this morning, and Japanese assistance for rebuilding facilities in the occupied territories was part of our discussion.
We are, however, conscious of the fact that if there is to be, as there will have to be, a rebuilding of the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure—schools, hospitals and so on—it can only be on the basis of undertakings from the Government of Israel that this will not be under threat in the future. It will have to be in the framework of an overall settlement. There will have to be better and more transparent arrangements to ensure that the money paid in is used for the purpose.
I have not seen President Prodi's speech, but I say to the House that we should judge institutions by their actions. Javier Solana, the European Council's high representative on foreign affairs, has been tireless in his work to secure a settlement. The United States Administration would be the first to say that much of what they have done has been in concert and collaboration with Javier Solana, to whom I spoke just before I came to the House to make this statement. The second thing that has to be said about the European Union is that, over many years, it has been by far the largest donor of aid to the Palestinian Authority, and it stands ready to act in that constructive way as soon as it can in the future.
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)The deployment of British and US personnel to resolve the question of President Arafat is a very welcome development and a tribute not only to my right hon. Friend and the British Government but to those personnel who carry out these incredibly difficult tasks, and we should place that on record. However, I hope that the 672 Foreign Secretary is aware that we should press on the Israelis the importance of bringing an international aspect to the matter, not least because the Israelis, while they occupy the territory of the Palestinians with illegal settlements, might one day have good reason to call on international observers of the type that we are employing at this time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make sure that the Israelis never forget that.
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We found it difficult, and quite painful, when it was first suggested that outside intervention might help us to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland, but in the event it turned out to be a very sensible move.
§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)There is nothing in the Foreign Secretary's statement with which I take issue. I offer him my support and, indeed, congratulations on the ingenious initiative to free President Arafat from de facto captivity. In addition, it is worth recognising that there will be physical risks for those who will be deployed on that difficult and dangerous task, and we should take every step to ensure that they are minimised.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the Church of the Nativity, where conditions surely do not bear thinking about, given the duration of the siege. In the name of humanity, is it not now essential to end the incarceration of those inside? Does the Foreign Secretary, like me, feel a sense of irony or perhaps even discomfort, because he and I and others in the House have asserted, by reference to UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, Israel's unqualified right to live within secure boundaries, but Israel persists in its defiance of the United Nations and its Secretary-General on the necessary inquiry into events in Jenin? Finally, what is the Foreign Secretary's response to those who allege that Israel's operations in the occupied territories will have the effect of dismantling the Palestinian Authority and emasculating Yasser Arafat, consequently leaving a vacuum, which will severely undermine the possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state?
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's welcome for the initiative; as I said, please God that we can deal with the final details and it can go ahead. I am in no doubt that resolving the issue of the continued detention of the six suspects in a way that satisfies Israel's legitimate anxieties about the manner in which the Palestinian Authority in the past have or have not detained such individuals is important. We need to recognise that the Palestinian Authority have been open to entirely justified criticism that too often in the past they have picked people up, detained them for a period, then the revolving door has got going, and they have let them out the back, which is unacceptable behaviour. We are seeking to resolve the issue without absolving the Palestinian Authority of its principal responsibility of ensuring the security of those who are detained and those doing the detaining.
As for the physical risks, of course one understands that monitors could face a risk, which is why a further mission is going out today, arriving shortly, and why every effort will be made to minimise the risks. It is worth repeating that all the individuals in our team have police, prison or military backgrounds, although they are not serving 673 officers and have, as I said, previously worked for the OSCE. In the Church of the Nativity, conditions are dreadful and negotiations must continue. As for the question of dismantling the Palestinian Authority, at the meeting last Monday and Tuesday in Valencia, we were given a lot of detail and tables by Nabil Shaath, the foreign affairs representative of the Palestinian Authority, about what he claimed was the gratuitous destruction of Palestinian Authority facilities, which is obviously of concern, especially if and where they serve no military purpose whatsoever. It just adds to the challenge facing the Palestinian Authority to rebuild that infrastructure as quickly as possible.
As for President Arafat, if under the arrangement he is released and can travel, whatever has happened until now—we must not forget the increasing terror suffered in Israel in recent months and the assassinations—and in the past, he has a heavy responsibility to act for peace once he has his new freedom.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)With regard to the potential lifting of the blockade on Yasser Arafat, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is distinctly unimpressive that it has taken six months' work by the British Government, together with the wheedling of the United States President and the British Prime Minister, to persuade the Israeli Government to do what they should have been made to do weeks ago, and as they continue rampaging through the Palestinian territories?
Will my right hon. Friend understand further that throughout the Arab world and the Muslim world, and much more widely, it will he seen as double standards that we threaten military action against Iraq because it will not allow United Nations arms inspectors in, as they should be allowed in, while we allow the Israelis to get away with dodging UN resolution 1405, which provides that a fact-finding mission should be admitted? The more that the Israelis continue postponing the implementation of the resolution, the more others will take the view that that is because they have something to cover up. If the Israelis do not get on with allowing the mission in immediately, it will be time to impose sanctions and an arms ban on them.
§ Mr. StrawIt was always our view that Chairman Arafat should not have been incarcerated at the facility in Ramallah or anywhere else. We made that increasingly clear over many weeks. Indeed, we were pressing the Israelis—unsuccessfully as it turned out—to release President Arafat from his detention in Ramallah so that he could attend the Arab League summit in Beirut a few weeks ago.
I am fully aware of the concern in the Arab world and the wider Muslim community about what has happened in the occupied territories. As it happens—this is not the moment for a lengthy debate about these matters—I do not believe that there is a parallel between the position of Iraq and its flagrant violation of nine separate Security Council resolutions and the fact that all the Security Council resolutions relating to Israel and the occupied territories impose obligations on both sides in Israel and the occupied territories. It is fair to say that neither side has implemented these obligations with sufficient alacrity or assiduity in the past.
There has been a serious obligation on the Palestinian Authority and on Palestinians not to engage in terrorism, and we must bear that in mind.
674 I understand entirely what my right hon. Friend says about Jenin. It is a point that I have made repeatedly to Israeli Ministers. If, as they say, the action in Jenin was proportionate and justified, the quicker an international inquiry of the standing of that appointed by Kofi Annan gets in there, the better it will be for Israel itself.
§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)Has President Arafat given a clear and unambiguous statement that he deplores the activity of suicide bombers and believes that those who organise them should be brought to justice? In a complex and difficult situation, does the Foreign Secretary think that such a statement, highly publicised, would be a major contribution to bringing about a peaceful settlement?
§ Mr. StrawThe answer is yes to both questions, but it is important that President Arafat speaks not only in English, in which he is very competent, but also in Arabic to his own people. That is an important element in him exercising leadership.
§ Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East)As chairman of the Britain-Palestine group, may I thank my right hon. Friend and his team for all the efforts that they are making at this difficult time?
From the Palestinian point of view, it must be difficult for Palestinians and their sympathisers now to believe that Israel is serious about establishing a Palestinian state. In my opinion, it is up to the Israelis to make a bold gesture—for example, at the least to stop building the 32 settlements that have been started since Ariel Sharon came to power. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that should be done to bring back confidence to the Palestinians?
§ Mr. StrawWhile I accept what my hon. Friend says, there is not one view in Israel about the nature of any final settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The UN is clear about what needs to be done, which is that we have a secure state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine, and that there is also a solution to the problems of refugees and the siting of capitals in Jerusalem, and the settlements of Israeli residents in the occupied territories.
We have always been clear that the physical settlements must be ended quickly. There cannot be a lasting solution to the problem of Palestine until that happens.
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)The Foreign Secretary has been forthright, and rightly so, about what he expects from President Arafat. Will he be equally forthright about what he expects from Mr. Sharon; and will he tell Mr. Sharon that if he expects a newly released President Arafat to behave as a responsible leader, it is essential that the siege of the Church of the Nativity be lifted and that the international team, which is about as respectable an international team as has ever been assembled, be allowed in immediately?
§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)Would it not be useful to recognise that that should be the first step in international intervention to try and end the long, bloody conflict which has taken the lives of so many innocent 675 people, including children, in the past two years? Although we should criticise Israel, and Israel should recognise the depth of criticism—which is by no means anti-Semitic, and it is nonsense for Sharon to describe it as such—is it not also necessary for the Palestinians to accept that suicide bombings and public lynchings do nothing to further the Palestinian cause? Those messages to both the Israelis and the Palestinians should be clear and sharp, and there should be no illusions on the part of the Israeli and Palestinian leadership about our feelings on the matter.
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful to my hon. Friend for the balanced way in which he expressed that. It is not possible to understand the depth of the hatred of Israel in the occupied territories without understanding the fact of occupation and the way the Palestinians have been treated; nor is it possible to understand the depth of fear and, in many cases, hatred in the state of Israel without understanding the way in which the increasing crescendo of suicide bombings going off indiscriminately and without warning has terrorised that country.
As for public lynchings, that is no justice in any territory or any country, and it damages the reputation of the Palestinians. We must look forward, and rather than trying to allocate blame, which in my judgment is an impossible and hopeless task in a desperate situation, recognise that people have been profoundly damaged on both sides. They need our moral, practical and physical support. We are proposing small but significant steps—in the hope that by going forward rather than backwards, we may in the end secure some peace.
§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)I wholeheartedly support everything that the Foreign Secretary said in his statement this afternoon, particularly in respect of sending experienced British monitors to the region and an international inquiry into what happened in Jenin. Is it not worth while pausing for a moment and reminding ourselves that Israel is one of the few complete parliamentary democracies in the middle east? If, therefore, we are to win over Israeli opinion so that there is a withdrawal from the occupied territories, it is essential that there be an end to terrorism, suicide bombings and the lynching of so-called collaborators. If that does not happen, the situation will go from bad to worse.
§ Mr. StrawI agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I also say that, in any conflict, one side has a significant responsibility to the other side to take account of the way in which its own political processes operate.
§ Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)If the Sharon regime continues to act in flagrant defiance of the United Nations, international law and fundamental human rights, will Her Majesty's Government consult our American and European allies about the possibility of putting economic pressure on Israel?
§ Mr. StrawI object to the failure by all sides fully to implement United Nations Security Council resolutions as quickly and assiduously as possible. I say to my hon. Friend, however, that it is important that we use words in a particular context. "Regime" is generally applied to 676 countries that are undemocratic. Whatever else one says about the Israeli Government and Parliament, they cannot be criticised for not being democratic. They are democratic. Some of us, were we writing the Israeli constitution—I speak entirely personally—might come up with a slightly different voting system, but that is another matter.
§ Mr. Menzies CampbellD'Hondt?
§ Mr. StrawI do not want to go into that now. I mention it in passing and as an entirely parenthetical remark.
My hon. Friend spoke about economic sanctions. The economies of Israel and the occupied territories have already been very severely damaged by the conflict. Nabil Shaath, the foreign affairs representative of the Palestinian Authority, told the gathering in Valencia last week that what had been a $4 billion economy was now reduced to a $2 billion economy, and Israel's has also suffered. In that context, the argument that making the suffering worse on both sides will somehow advance a settlement is not one that I find especially convincing.
§ Angus Robertson (Moray)The Foreign Secretary urged other parties to give their support. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the major opposition parties in Scotland and Wales in giving the full support of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru for the diplomatic initiative. I share the concern felt by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the continuing lack of access of the United Nations to investigate circumstances in Jenin. Are the UK Government expressly ruling out the possibility of economic and military sanctions? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Plaid Cymru Members of the European Parliament, who have voted in favour of suspending the EU-Israel association agreement as a first step toward trying to bring the Israelis to a decision to allow UN access?
§ Mr. StrawI understand what the European Parliament has done, but it is not a decision-making body; it expresses points of view. [Interruption.] That is true; I am not seeking to make a point, but explaining the way in which its constitution operates. If I had accepted its agenda, I would have brought it before the House. The honest truth is that, with a bit of luck, we are engaged in the beginnings of a negotiation. In those circumstances, difficult and delicate though the process is, we should give it some time to operate rather than apply measures whose purpose, apart from an expression of anger, which will not get us very far, I have yet fully to comprehend.
§ Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South)Many, especially in this country, who wish to see a Palestinian state as well as an Israeli one, feel very frustrated that while we put an onus on Yasser Arafat to deliver, we do not place quite the same onus on Israel to do so. As I have understood the successive international agreements, they have required an end to the making of settlements and negotiations about reducing their number. More significantly, it is now very important for Israel to recognise that it must agree in the next few hours to the entry of a United Nations team. The longer it leaves the issue, the more suspicious people will become. May I also 677 ask my right hon. Friend where we will go from here if Israel does not agree? Should we consider the question of sanctions?
§ Mr. StrawThe Jenin inquiry was set up with the agreement of the Government of Israel. The formal position is that it was set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and it was welcomed by the Security Council. I still hope that Israel will acknowledge and respond to the international pressure, not least from the United Kingdom and the United States, to which it has been subjected, and will admit the fact-finding inquiry. I spoke with Shimon Peres last night, and it is fair to point out on behalf of the Israeli Government that they are anxious not about the possibility of any fact-finding mission, but about its nature and how far its inquiries will deal with the discipline of individual soldiers. I think that we understand that.
As to sanctions, we can if we wish get into the blame game, in which case many people on both sides might choose to drag up what happened at Camp David and at Taba and try to allocate blame to the Palestinian side as much as to the Israeli side. I am far from convinced that that would produce anything hut further difficulty for both sides. It is important instead to accept that the current situation is desperate and to take small steps such as this—which has taken a huge amount of work by British and American diplomats, especially by Secretary of State Colin Powell—to try to achieve some easing of tensions, then to get a peace process on the road.
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)I welcome the progress announced by the Foreign Secretary. Does he accept that one of the imbalances involved in the problem is that when Israel behaves badly, as it does from time to time, everybody knows who is responsible, but when Palestinian terrorism occurs there is much greater uncertainty? In that context, will he tell the House whether he believes that there is a direct link between the Palestinian suicide bombers, the Al Aqsa martyrs brigade, the Fatah organisation and Yasser Arafat himself?
§ Mr. StrawIt is true that because Israel is a nation state, a member of the United Nations and a democracy, it is expected to observe higher standards than any group of terrorists. That point was made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in his speech on 16 April and it has been widely endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We had to recognise that fact in respect of Northern Ireland too. Of course, democratic nation states that subscribe to the charter of the United Nations have to accept higher standards of behaviour than groups of terrorists. On the other hand, that does not mean—I would be the last person to suggest this—that we should indulge the terrorists or ignore their funding. It was I who, as Home Secretary, introduced the Terrorism Act 2000, which banned Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organisations in this country.
I cannot comment with certainty on precise connections between the different organisations and the suicide bombers. However, I can say that there must be a determination by everybody in authority in the occupied 678 territories—above all, but far from exclusively. President Arafat—to clamp down on terrorist activity in Israel and those territories.
§ Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)It is now more than two weeks since I came back from Jenin, and I consider it an absolute outrage that the United Nations has been frustrated in its efforts to send a team to the area. It is disgraceful that people think that they can behave as though they were in a pick-and-mix shop, picking sweets as they like, and we have had enough of it.
When I came back from Jenin, I was very careful about what I said because I wanted to keep a sense of proportion, but now I would say that on the day we were in Jenin for eight hours many of us heard witness statements. We heard about people coming out of their houses in the refugee camp with their hands above their heads and being shot dead. We heard about people being injured and lying there to die without any help. While we were there, the humanitarian teams were denied access. I am therefore not surprised that Israel does not want people there to find out the truth. Those of us who heard some of the truth will be pleased to place it on the record at some time in the future if the team does not get in.
This is a test of the credibility of the United Nations and of the position of Kofi Annan. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). We take sanctions against other countries that defy UN resolutions; we should also take sanctions against Israel, which has perpetually defied UN resolutions.
§ Mr. StrawI not only understand but share my hon. Friend's frustration about the Government of Israel's failure so far to make satisfactory arrangements to admit Kofi Annan's inquiry team. Following her visit to Jenin and the debate in the House on 16 April, I determined that the United Kingdom Government should take the initiative to get such an inquiry established. I was glad that we did that and that we gained support in the Security Council. My frustration therefore relates not only to my office but is personal.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the credibility of the United Nations. It is important that Israel recognise that point and that its reputation is damaged as long as it refuses to admit the inquiry. Under its terms of reference, it is only a fact-finding inquiry. The people in the team have been carefully chosen for their experience, record of distinguished international service and, I believe, ability. For example, the former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross is a member. The membership of the team is balanced between the two sides.
Whether or not the inquiry team is admitted, I hope that my hon. Friend produces and submits her witness statements.
§ Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central)In respect of United Nations resolutions and Israel, are there any consequences for not complying? The Foreign Secretary argued that we should not apply sanctions to democratic countries. One could argue that it is more legitimate to apply sanctions to such countries because sanctions hurt many people apart from the Government.
679 We applied sanctions against South Africa, which had democracy for some of its citizens. In Israel and the country occupied by it, not all citizens are entitled to vote. And not all citizens who are entitled but not allowed to live in Israel can vote.
§ Mr. StrawI understand that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter. He asks about United Nations Security Council resolutions that have not been accepted or followed in full by Israel. Elements of such resolutions have not been followed in full by Arab states that are expected to recognise the state of Israel. Of course, they have not been followed by those behind the terrorist activities. We should bear in mind the imperative of United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 against terrorism.
If my hon. Friend had listened to my comments, he would realise that I talked about Israel being a democratic state in the context not of sanctions but of having to accept a higher standard of behaviour than any terrorist organisation.
§ Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)May I recount to my right hon. Friend a story that was e-mailed to me last week by my constituent, Isabelle Bennett-Humphries, who works for a human rights organisation in Palestine? Last week, she spoke to an elderly woman in Jenin who described soldiers coming to bulldoze her house. She told them that she had a disabled son in the house and asked them whether they would wait for a couple of minutes while she got him outside. They refused and held her back. She had to listen to her son's screams as he was killed by falling masonry. Does not my right hon. Friend believe that, with such stories coming out of Jenin, it is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians to get to the bottom of the matter as soon as possible?
§ Mr. StrawMy hon. Friend makes the case for a proper fact-finding mission to go in without delay more eloquently than I ever could.
§ Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the essential answer to the questions that many hon. Members have asked is that clear evidence exists that atrocities in Jenin and possibly elsewhere were committed, not only by individual soldiers, groups or operations, but by the state? That very state obstructs the inquiry that the United Nations requires. If that state continues to obstruct these inquiries, will my right hon. Friend give a clear, distinct and short answer to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the 680 Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? If Israel continues to obstruct this inquiry, what are we going to do about it?
§ Mr. StrawThe fact that there have been allegations of very serious misbehaviour by soldiers and others in Jenin makes the case for the inquiry. My hon. and learned Friend asks what we are going to do about it. We are but one member of the United Nations Security Council, which has to agree unanimously at the level of the permanent members before further action can be taken. We have been vigorous in pursuing the case for an inquiry and, as I have said, it was as a result of concern expressed in the House and of the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) that we were able to get the inquiry. I hope that the Government of Israel will, even at this stage, acknowledge the need for this inquiry to take place without delay under the arrangements set by Kofi Annan. If they do not, the short answer is that we and the international community will have to consider very carefully what further action may be taken.
§ Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)Does my right hon. Friend understand the frustration of people at hearing that we "will have to consider" what further action may be taken, when Israel is using the full panoply of its military might against civilians, including women and children, day after day—while we sit saying, "We will have to consider this"? Will he take the lead in the UN to ensure that Israel, as a democracy, respects the human rights of the Palestinian people, which it is demonstrably failing to do every day at the moment?
§ Mr. StrawOf course I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. Most of the time, I share it. I must also say, however, that we have to work in the world that exists, not in the world that we wish to invent. The world that exists is a world in which there are five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—my hon. Friend knows which they are—and we have to work in concert with them if we are to achieve the enforcement of international law and of UN Security Council resolutions. I understand her frustration, and I understand the attraction to people of venting their anger and frustration about this situation.
I happen to know, however, that had it not been for some painstaking work by British and American diplomats—with the full support of and great activity by American Secretary of State Colin Powell, and with my active support—we would not be where we are today, with a little bit of luck, with a solution to a long-standing problem. The six detained people may now be moved to a secure facility elsewhere, and President Arafat will be released to restart his activity in effective and constructive politics inside the occupied territories and elsewhere. That seems to be the kind of positive contribution that the House expects of the British Government, and which it sought in the debate 13 days ago.