THE MIDDLE EAST

HL Deb 11 December 1974 vol 355 cc689-735

5.34 p.m.

Lord CHELWOOD rose to call attention to the growing need for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and to urge Her Majesty's Government to use all their influence, in conjunction with the other members of the European Community, to this end; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very glad that I was lucky in the ballot, as it has given me an opportunity to raise a question which is both topical and urgent. I shall do my best to start the debate in as low a key as possible and avoid all unnecessary controversy, because I am only too well aware of the passions and emotions which can so easily be aroused by this subject. The interest taken in it is quite clear from the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. I shall do my very best to limit myself to 20 minutes, which I hope will be thought reasonable. I am sure that when the noble Lord, the Minister, replies he will need 20 minutes. Unfortunately, this means, even if I waive my right to reply or limit myself to perhaps 60 seconds, that if every noble Lord who wishes to speak actually takes part each speech will have to be of no greater length than 10 minutes. I hope I am not saying anything "cheeky" in drawing attention to this fact.

My object in raising this matter today is to try to extract from Her Majesty's Government a much clearer statement than has been given since last February on how they view the prospects of a renewed peace initiative in the Middle East. I should also like to emphasise the paramount importance of the European Community as such, formulating and energetically pursuing a common policy to this end. It would be both provocative and abortive to argue the toss about the agonies and difficulties of the past, to which British policy, unhappily under successive Governments, has all too often contributed. Nothing would be gained by apportioning blame to Israel or the Arabs for past acts of folly and violence, whether committed by the Stern Gang or Black September, which have so often been born of despair and desperation. I think the Arab-Israeli dispute started as a tragic outcome of great Power politics. This imposes an undeniable duty on those same Powers to make a supreme effort to find a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and not to give up until they have succeeded.

Wherever our sympathies lie—and surely they must lie with all the victims of this prolonged and senseless conflict—we must regard past events as so much water under the Allenby Bridge. Today I want to look forward with hope and feel there are some quite good grounds for doing so. I feel confident that that will be the spirit of this debate. It is undeniable that the United States holds the key to the door to peace. It is equally undeniable that Dr. Kissinger has made energetic and highly imaginative efforts this year to turn that key. Yet the door to meaningful negotiations that could lead to peace remains obstinately and tightly shut. Perhaps too much has been left to the Americans—I do not know. At any rate, where the Soviet Union is concerned, it is fairly clear that they are unable, and perhaps unwilling, to take an impartial initiative. Whether or not Moscow has a vested interest in what is often called "no peace, no war", I cannot say. But it is probably true to say that they have little or nothing to lose from the continuing deadlock, however inconsistent that may be with their constant and recent protestations that the cold war is over.

All this points, in my view, to the urgent need for the European Community to give a fresh and strong lead. I have no doubt whatever that there is renewed hardening of attitudes on both sides, and even a mood of resignation towards the prospect of yet another eruption into war, which would be for the fifth time since Partition. I fear that a growing number of Israelis already favour a pre-emptive strike against a heavily re-armed Syria—re-armed, of course, by the Soviet Union—and that even in isolation such a move, though it might be militarily successful, would be politically disastrous. At the same time, I see a growing frustration in Egypt, Syria and Jordan, which plays into the hands of the militants and those who urge them on, sometimes for ulterior motives. That means that there must be a serious risk yet again of a concerted Arab attack on Israel or, at any rate, that such an attack cannot be ruled out.

Despite this gloomy analysis—also, in some ways, because of it—I in fact see some good reasons for hope for the future if two basic conditions are met. Both, I frankly admit, pose very grave problems indeed, though not insuperable ones; both may only happen gradually—they will certainly not happen overnight, as is inevitable when conflict springs from long and deep-seated fears and grievances. But that both conditions will have to be fulfilled before these negotiations are successful I am sure is correct.

The first condition I suggest, with respect, is that the Palestinians through the PLO, and following their dramatic, almost worldwide, diplomatic success in recent weeks, must show magnanimity and statesmanship. They must learn to reject extremism and violence which can only jeopardise their own legitimate hopes. The PLO must state unequivocally that Israel has the right to exist in peace with her neighbours within secure and guaranteed frontiers. This would mean changing Article 6 of their Covenant and accepting fully, without reservations, United Nations Resolution No. 242. The PLO must not only condemn, punish and discourage, as they have, terrorism in neutral and friendly countries by men and women purporting to be their agents, but also, I suggest, terrorism in Israel and the occupied Arab territories against civilian targets. That would be a very helpful move in the right direction. In other words, and to round off this first condition, the PLO itself and Israel's Arab neighbours, must learn to regard the nation of Israel as a potential friend and neighbour. Israelis must no longer be seen as individuals—this was a mistake in the United Nations Resolution No. 242 about the Palestinians themselves, though it has since then been corrected.

So much for what I humbly suggest is perhaps the first basic conditions that has somehow to be met. What is the second condition? I suggest the second condition for successful peace negotiations is equally demanding but just as vital. Israel must acknowledge the PLO as representing the Palestinian people if there is to be a real prospect of living at peace with her neighbours. Your Lordships will recognise the immense problem this poses for any Israeli Government, not least the present one. But such agonising decisions have had to be made in the past. I can think of Her Majesty's Government and the Mau-Mau; I can think of the French Government and the FLM and, most recently, the new Portuguese Government and Frelimo. These things have had to happen in the past. They are incredibly difficult. But, in this instance, it is something which has to happen again.

I am glad to say that I see some signs of a shift in this direction in Israel. This is encouraging. For instance, Dr. Nahum Goldmann. President of the World Jewish Congress, gave a welcome lead in an article in the Jewish Chronicle of 29th November. The heading was "Time to take risks", which was sub-titled by the editor as, Dr. Nahum Goldmann … urges Israel to take risks now in an effort to secure peace with the Arabs including the Palestine Liberation Organisation". The article continued, that he was highly critical of the Israeli Government's— … refusal permanently to recognise the PLO, especially after practically the totality of the peoples of the world, with the exception, for the time being, of the United States—and I would not take any bets as to how long this attitute will last—have recognised it ". Only a few days previously the Jewish Chronicle, in two editorials, expressed broadly similar views. On 8th November under the heading "Israel and the PLO" the Jewish Chronicle editorial said: By rejecting any contact with this organisation on any terms, Israel is driving herself into a corner in which she is becoming increasingly isolated. They suggested that a readiness to negotiate on clear-cut terms would be preferable to a refusal which alienated world opinion, and which may have to be revised under pressure at a later date. Two weeks later, in the Jewish Chronicle of 27th November, the editorial urged on Israel, the necessity for a searing and fundamental reappraisal of Israel's policy ". Of course they express every sympathy for the terrible dilemma this poses for any Israeli Government; and, indeed, they are right.

Those are brave and statesmanlike sentiments coming from such sources, and I am glad to have an opportunity of drawing attention to them. Similar sentiments were expressed in Israel by the Minister of Information, Mr. Yaryf, last July. Admittedly, his speech caused a great furore, and he came under extremely heavy attack as a result of it. None the less, he had the courage to say quite clearly that it should be possible to talk with the PLO if only they would acknowledge the right of the State of Israel to exist and would renounce their intention to overthrow it by violence. It was saddening and worrying for me, and for many of your Lordships, when that very courageous man, Dr. Israel Shahak, Chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, who dared to criticise the present policies of his own Government, was subjected to a campaign of such violent abuse and threats in the Knesset and Israeli Press. This was extremely disappointing and it runs counter to the hopeful note I have been striking.

In a word, what is desperately needed, surely, is peaceful coexistence in the real sense of those words (and not in the way they have sometimes been distorted by others) between Israelis and Palestinians. There may appear to be an unbridgeable gulf between the PLO's avowed aim of what they call a "unitary state in partnership" on the West Bank and in Gaza, and Israel's avowed aim to maintain the status quo. These two points of view can be brought together, and it was envisaged in the Balfour Declaration and, for that matter, in the United Nations Partition Plan—something of which we may remind ourselves at this moment—that both nations should exist side by side.

I have every reason to believe that I am pressing at an open door where Her Majesty's Government are concerned in urging them to use greater influence to achieve peace in the Middle East. I was immensely encouraged by the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place (which I understand I am allowed to paraphrase) when he said that there were three fundamental needs if a settlement were to be reached. First of all, Israel must have satisfaction of her need for recognition by her neighbours of permanence as a State and of her legitimate security requirements. He said, secondly, that Israel's Arab neighbours must have satisfaction on the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces. Lastly, he said that provision must be made for satisfaction of the needs of the Palestinians, by which he said he meant not only the rights of individual Palestinian refugees, but also the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. I welcome that most warmly. It is a major step forward of which we should take most careful account.

What alternative is there to reopening peace negotiations? There is one: another war—a war probably far more terrible than the last one. I see a real danger of such a war next spring. I think it is brewing. Ultra-modern weapons would be used; civilian targets for the first time would be very likely to be attacked and very great damage done. There would be a very heavy cost in lives and an intensification of bitterness which would postpone the chance of settlement for many more years to come.

In terms of self-interest alone, grave economic damage would be done to the United Kingdom's already shaky economy and the economies of our Community partners, not to mention the disastrous effect on the developing countries. There would be no victors in such a war. All would be losers, not least the oil-bearing countries who would lose heavily from deflation and massive unemployment among their best customers, resulting from the almost inevitable oil embargo. Hawks in America might well again urge military intervention in the Arab oil States, something which, if it occurred, would make the Suez campaign look like a picnic. A fresh outbreak of war would again raise the terrifying spectre of the spread of conflagration beyond the Middle East.

My Lords, I have said something about the problems and warned about the slow pace at which we can expect progress towards a comprehensive solution, but what constructive suggestion can I make now towards that end? This, I realise, is very far from easy. I can make only one suggestion today, and that is that the European Community, of which the United Kingdom is a member and, I think, highly likely to remain one, could have much more influence than is realised provided an initiative were to be taken.

I know that it was very difficult for the Community to reach agreement on the resolution adopted by the nine Foreign Ministers in Copenhagen in November last year, but it was this resolution that laid down such excellent guidelines and expressed such admirable sentiments. It is very disappointing that the follow-up has been so inadequate. For example, what real thought has been given to the kind of international guarantees that would make a settlement on the basis of Resolution 242 possible? What part would the Community be willing to play in the "despatch and maintenance of a peace-keeping force" to the demilitarised zones which will surely have to be set up? What pressure, if any, has been brought to bear on Israel to take account of "the legitimate rights of the Palestinians", which is another quote from the same Resolution. What steps have been taken by the Community to persuade the PLO that Israel has the absolute right to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence", which is another quote from the same Resolution.

There are many other questions which will spring to your Lordships' minds, but I would ask only one more before I come to my conclusion; it is a question which has arisen only recently. It is, perhaps, very controversial, but I think the question should be asked. Is it the intention of the Community to recognise the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people? I myself think that they must do this if they are really to influence events. I assume that it is the intention because M. Sauvagnargues, President in Office of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine recently met Mr. Arafat and one hears, although one cannot be sure, that the talks went well. I hope that they did.

If there are answers to these questions they really seem at the moment to be somewhat shrouded in mystery. If precise plans and preparations are not being made along these lines one can only regard the Resolution passed on the oth November 1973, as somewhat meaningless and I am sure it was never intended to be that. So, in conclusion, I would say that we have had enough of words. What is needed now is some fresh action if disaster is to be avoided. The fact that the machinery for political co-operation in the European Community is less than adequate is no excuse for not taking the necessary action.

I ask the Minister when he comes to reply to be good enough to do his best to answer the questions which I have put to him about the extent to which Her Majesty's Government is pressing her partners in the Community to translate words into action. I am sure that he will not tell me that all these matters must wait on the Euro-Arab dialogue which is still in its preparatory stages. The action which I should like to see taken obviously has to be taken in conjunction with the United States in order to bring about an early resumption of the Geneva Peace talks.

My Lords, both Israelis and Palestinians have already suffered tragically and for too long through this appalling conflict. Both sides rightly demand security and national identity. Both could have it. That is the only basis for the peace that we could and should help to ensure. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to give your Lordships an assurance that they will take all possible steps to reach that objective in conjunction with the United States and our partners in the European Community. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

5.55 p.m.

Lord SAINSBURY

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for initiating this debate, and I should like to say how much I personally am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Fisher of Camden. As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, the Middle East is a subject on which passions inevitably run high, yet emotive language and extremism can contribute nothing to the search for peace. There can be no question of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East without an appreciation on all sides of the genuine fears of the Israelis. The population of the Arab States is 125 million, while Israel's is a mere 3 million, 55 per cent. of whom have lived in Arab countries. The increased wealth available to Israel's enemies for military purposes through the unleashing of the oil weapon has turned the tables in favour of the Arabs. This situation contrasts sharply with Israel's feelings of isolation, and her growing fears of Western appeasement and of a willingness to sacrifice Israel as the West once sacrificed Czechoslovakia. We must understand Israel's fear of being sacrificed on the altar of oil.

The United States and Russia may talk of détente, but in the Middle East they are clearly on different sides. Détente, as the Israeli Prime Minister has said, does not extend to the Middle East. America supports Israel. Russia pours the latest sophisticated weapons into Syria. Since last year's war, two designs have been vying with each other. The US-Israel-Jordan-Egypt idea of a stage-by-stage progress towards a settlement was one such concept; another was the Syrian-Soviet aim of blocking any progress towards overall or partial settlement. Israel has made considerable concessions. Israel has made it clear that it no longer insists on political settlement with formal renunciation of belligerency. It is prepared to agree to further disengagement provided Egypt makes concessions by undertakings to the United States.

Israel's Foreign Minister has said: There is room alongside the State of Israel for an Arab State, of whatever name, which will give expression to the Palestinian identity. Syria's attitude remains the chief stumbling block to peace. Israel cannot be expected to accept an imposed settlement. Until Syria is prepared to honour a separation of forces agreement, and not to subvert it by encouraging Palestinian guerrillas and building up massive stocks of arms, the threat of war in 1975 must continue to loom large. The cardinal aim for all who seek peace in the Middle East must be to prevent Egypt from being driven back into the arms, in both senses, of the Soviet Union. The prospects of Jordan and Egypt participating in a stage-by-stage settlement are greatly to be welcomed, but Syria and Russia must cooperate.

It is conventional to accuse Israel of being the sole instigator of the injustices inflicted on the Palestinian Arabs. But the Arab nations have done little for the 700,000 refugees in United Nations' administered camps. These displaced people are supported on an 88 million dollar budget, largely underwritten by the United States, which contributes 29 million dollars a year, and the Economic Community, which contributes 24 million dollars. The oil-rich Arab States, which at the Rabat Summit voted 2.3 billion dollars to the fight against Israel, including 50 million dollars to finance PLO terrorism, provided last year the pitiful sum of just 2 million dollars to the upkeep of refugees. With a thousand times that sum spent on attacking Israel, we may well query the sincerity of Arab concern for Palestinian families.

I believe that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the long overdue rights of the Palestinian people and the self-appointed Palestinian Liberation Organisation. The PLO was founded in 1964 with the express aim—I quote its founder—of "driving the Jews into the sea". The murderous exploits of the six organisations it embraces are too widely known to require detailed mention. Yet this organisation is now welcomed at the United Nations. I believe it is unfortunate that, at the United Nations, Britain acquiesced in the granting of observer status to a man who has no more right to it than the Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA. For while the tactics of terror persist in the Middle East, in Ireland or in this country, there cannot— and, indeed, there should not—be any political esteem for their perpetrators.

My Lords, to conclude, I should like to say that we all hope for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I hope that we shall all take into account the fears of Israel as well as the rights of the Palestinians. I hope, too, that we shall recall, when the PLO speaks of dis mantling the Jewish State and replacing it with a secular democratic entity, that there has never been an Arab State; that is, an Arab State either secular or democratic. Above all, my Lords, let us remember that no certitude of righteousness justifies violence. To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine; it is to kill a man.

6.6 p.m.

The Earl of GOWRIE

My Lords, this debate is short on time but long on urgency. If inflation is "the" domestic issue of our moment of history, then the need, surely, for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East must be "the" concern of British foreign policy. With clarity that only comes from experience, my noble friend has brought this home to us this afternoon, and we are grateful to him and delighted that his Motion was chosen for debate. I myself am particularly grateful because my job is to speak from these Benches on economic affairs, and my noble friend's Motion gives me the opportunity to say how closely the economic crisis of inflation and stagnation, with its threat to our livelihood and to our ability to live peacefully together within our own national borders, is welded to the crisis outside. The twin pillars of this crisis are the Middle Eastern unrest over the Israeli and Palestinian questions, and the most rapid and radical shift in the balance of power that has occurred in my generation's lifetime.

There are welcome signs that at long last the degree to which this country's economic crisis is linked to the shift in power I have mentioned is being brought home to our people. Much the greater part of 1974 has been taken up with politics of a provincial and depressing kind. There was the desire, which I quite understand, of a minority Government—a new experience for us—to achieve majority support. During this time the energy crisis—as the Middle Eastern question is sometimes called—was consistently represented as something primarily to do with the previous Conservative Government's so-called policies of confrontation; as if trying to establish a flexible but orderly wages queue at a time of growing inflation was anything other than an attempt to contain that inflation while at the same time protecting employment. Now that the Government have won their majority, conservation has suddenly become a concern again.

Then there was, indeed there is, the desire, which I also understand but find less forgivable, for Government to make the principal platform of their foreign policy, not the Middle East, but renegotiation of our terms of entry into the European Community. This platform had to be erected because of the Labour Party, and the show enacted upon it has little or nothing to do with the all-important issue. Of course I believe that British financial contributions to common European funds should constantly come under review. But the questioning of the European principle by men who are in reality committed to it continues to distract our attention from the more powerful world beyond and the issues being debated this afternoon.

I fear that the Government are being outstripped by the Daily Mirror which today decided to give its huge readership a crash course in the Middle Eastern question. This, in my view, is of the very greatest value and I congratulate the Daily Mirror. Economic as well as purely political questions were presented in plain and graphic terms. Government and Parliament are also in the communications business. I acknowledge the superior potential of the present Government's powers of communication to our own for the time being. I do not like doing this, but I do so. It is all the more needful that they turn their back on distractions and concentrate all their efforts on explaining the new facts of our industrial and political lives and in getting the support of our people as they learn to cope with them.

My Lords, the stark facts are these: at a time when all the Western economies were wrestling with the currency inflation caused by external factors such as drought, the world commodity price explosion and the like, and internal factors such as the political difficulties generated by any significant change in the rates of unemployment, the oil weapon was unsheathed by the Middle Eastern Powers. That this came about was in my view somewhat less of a surprise to the Western Departments of State than is generally claimed: witness the rather unfairly named "Arab Legion" in our own Foreign Office. But we must remember, I think, that the world has got used to all major initiatives in foreign policy being settled, being imposed even, at super-Power level. We must remember that one of the limitations of the American system of executive control of foreign policy is that the overseas arm of government can choose to ignore what the economic arm is up to. We must remember that in the wise words of Professor Coral Bell, Europe at the moment is less than the sum of its parts: its members have not yet learned act as an ensemble, but have lost their old capacity to act as sovereign states. All this, I acknowledge is so much water under the bridge, or perhaps I should say, so much oil burnt and lost for ever in the wastes of atmosphere. Our people acknowledge that cheap energy, like cheap food, has also been lost for ever. The miners, indeed, have been saying so for a long time. Unfortunately, this did not prevent them from bringing down a Government which recognised that the October 1973 war in the Middle East changed their position, even as long before that war it had pumped more money into revitalising the coal industry than any Government since 1945. The last few days indicate, too, that there are other lessons which they believe can be learned at the knees of the oil sheikhs.

Be that as it may, it is less certain that our people recognise that there is another sword in the Middle Eastern sheath, the money weapon. The blade is already visible as is shown by the impossibility of any significant lowering of interest rates, even were inflation to be reduced. Of the two weapons I confess that I fear the money weapon most. By conservation, by sacrifice, by rapid and undoctrinaire exploitation of the North Sea, this country could survive the increased cost of oil. We could even recognise the painful justice of the situation. After all, only a year ago too many of us thought of the Middle East as just another part of the undeveloped Third World. But the present very precarious viability of the British economy depends on our invisible earnings, and the City of London is living on money which in some cases can be called in after only seven days. We desperately need long-term investment in our own sense of the phrase and we are not getting it.

What should the Government do? They must, as my noble friend said, try to help forge a common European policy towards the energy producers. In the few moments left to me I shall try to outline what I believe such a policy should be. It has been suggested that a common European front should be primarily economic: saving existing energy use: exploiting and sharing new sources—oil from the sea bed, new coal mines, nuclear developments and the like; meeting the oil sword with a shield of tariffs. As I understand it, Dr. Kissinger favours this policy, at least as a bargaining weapon. I knew Dr. Kissinger in his professorial days and I share the almost universal respect for his ability. But I do not myself believe that this economic approach is on, except as a last resort. In the first place, the political difficulties are too great. Europe as an entity is immature. I happen to believe in a common energy policy, but our debate the other day demonstrated that there are powerful forces, not least in Scotland, which do not. Failing such a policy and the means to enforce it the French, who are dependent on the Middle East for almost all their requirements, would not, in my view, risk their supply. In the second place, the money weapon which I mentioned greatly weakens the tariff shield. The West could freeze assets, but in the long term they need those assets to continue coming in.

Finally, the common front could not be realised without America. The structural differences between America and Europe are very great. As a recent report of the International Institute of Strategic Studies wisely said: One is a military superpower, the other a union and an economic competitor struggling to be born. The US has raw materials, Europe needs to buy them. Failing this common resistance to the frightening new powers, in both energy and money fields, of the Middle Eastern oil-producing States, the alternative must surely be a programme of European common co-operation with those States. Here, of course, is where the Israeli and Palestinian questions become so desperately sensitive. The oil-producing countries are our friends—they bank with us, they have a long history of working with us—but we have a special relationship, too, with the Israeli people through the Balfour Declaration, through our own Jewish population and through our natural admiration for a brave and gifted nation. This special relationship leads also to a special responsibility. We were in large part responsible for the dispossession of the Palestinian people, and the fact that a criminal hijacking force of guerillas would like to blackmail us into formal admission of this does not, alas, prevent it from being true.

Our role in a common European policy presents formidable difficulties but it is a role we must start to learn. I believe that the main thrust of European diplomacy must be directed towards the oil-producing powers themselves. They are not, after all, in the front line of the territorial dispute. In spite of their colossal wealth they need Europe or America, or both, for the utilisation and development of their resources. They recognise that Europe and America are committed, under Resolution 242, not only to the pre-1967 territorial national integrity of Israel but to Israel's security. This, in effect, must involve internationalised or demilitarised zones or both, and to be effective it must involve Israel in access to energy supplies. Even the Egyptians, who have great oil potential in the Western Desert, recognise this. Israel will never be a rich country in the sense of oil surplus, but she must have sufficient for her military protection. Europe and America could not and should not abandon her. Unless her security is protected in this way, her fellow-Western democracies must make it clear that whatever the difficulties they would have to gang together to make themselves far more independent of Arab oil or Arab money.

The second thrust of diplomacy, no less important, must be directed towards Israel herself. She must be persuaded to return Jerusalem, not to its old position as a tragically divided city, a Middle Eastern Berlin, but as an international city, a larger Middle Eastern Vatican, policed by neutrals. One does not need to be a theologian to point out the appropriateness of this course to a city which is a symbol of love and justice and redemption to all the occidental and the Near Eastern religions. Israel must, in my view, be persuaded that the consequences of her going nuclear in the military sense would mean that the Arabs would use their oil and cash levers to purchase parity—and do not think, my Lords, that that could not be done. The French alone could do if, and given the prospect of a certain level of unemployment, I believe they would have to.

The final thrust must be directed towards the establishing of a national home for the Palestinian people. This is the hardest question of all. On the one hand it would mean that several States would need to surrender part of their sovereignty; on the other, there are, as we know only too well, large intransigent groups of Palestinians who will only be satisfied by the destruction and repossession of Israel as a State. But ironically, my Lords, the oil and cash weapons of the wealthy Arabian hinterland are the guarantors here. Vast surplus wealth can compensate for sacrifice; also it can isolate extremism from moral and financial support. Continued Middle Eastern tension threatens the world as well as the region. We have evidence that the newly-rich Powers would rather protect and enjoy the world than bring it to its knees.

In sum, my Lords, I believe that there can be no solution to the Middle Eastern question until the Western democracies and the oil-producing States recognise that their economies are interdependent. We can only go without their oil by returning as a continent to a predominantly agricultural standard of life. They can only fully realise their assets by participating in, and not destroying, our economies. This interdependence can grow fruitfully only with peace, and both the old and the new rich have, if they wish, the power to impose peace. They must start the job together and they must start it now.

6.21 p.m.

Lord FISHER of CAMDEN

My Lords, this is my maiden speech and some may question the wisdom of choosing a subject which has been described in other places as a "hot potato". Who will quarrel, however, with anybody who has a genuine desire to help towards a real, permanent and secure peace in the Middle East! Thus I claim that in this sense the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is non-controversial.

At this point perhaps it would be fair for me to explain and to declare my interest, for I have the honour to be the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. This was established in this country in 1760–214 years ago—and is the representative body of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom. Therefore it will be of little surprise to noble Lords to appreciate that my sympathies, while overall for humanity, lie specifically in a certain direction.

I was interested in the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on the Palestinians. If I were he, I would not completely identify the Palestinians with the PLO. Most of the Palestinians live in Jordan. The PLO, as a terrorist organisation, is based in the Lebanon from where they organise their attacks on such strong points as schools and railway waiting halls and specialise in assassinations. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, says, we talk about the recognition of the PLO. We have to bear in mind, too, the situation of our ally Jordan and her position and also that of King Hussein whose personal position, in my view, would become untenable if the PLO were to be recognised as an official political entity. Again the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, talks of recognition and of giving up terrorism. It is for the terrorists to give up terrorism, and it would be delightful if the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, could persuade those terrorists to say publicly that they have given up their activities. This, surely, is a pre-requisite of any kind of association in the modern world.

The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to the Palestine refugees who lay for many years in filth and squalor in concentration camps, and, it could even be worse described, deliberately placed there and allowed to rot there—to be retained as hostages for some time in the future. When I tell your Lordships that the Arab lands, with their 125 million popuation, cover 5 million miles of ground, surely there is sufficient space for the Arabs to have taken care of the Palestinians and seen to it years ago that their condition was put right—indeed, exactly in the same way as 800,000 Jews were driven from Arab countries and are now completely integrated in the land of Israel.

I will not enter into a dispute with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, but at one point he referred to terrorism and I will leave him to the tender mercies of the Government spokesman. However, I must say that, in the eyes of all impartial observers, people who can be trusted to be completely neutral have stated that Jerusalem has never been so well cared for in the whole of its history. Israel is punctilious in ensuring that every religion which is associated with Jerusalem has its place, has its care, and is being looked after. I believe that we must give much thought to the matter before we propagate the theory of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, when Jerusalem is being recognised not only as the religious centre of the world, having seen the commencement of so many important religions, but as a city which has an important part to play in the life not only of Israel but of many races and religions.

My Lords, there may be different views about how peace can best be achieved, and discussion and constructive argument fairly put can only do good. In this context, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me for a moment, for I should like to quote a brief extract from the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission of 1937. The Chairman of this Royal Commission was a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Peel. The Report says: In the twelve centuries and more that had passed since the Arab conquest, Palestine had virtually dropped out of history. One chapter only is remembered—the not very noble romance of the Crusades. In economics as in politics, Palestine lay outside the main stream of the world's life. In the realm of thought, in science or in letters, it made no contribution to modern civilisation. Its last stage was worse than its first. In 1914 the condition of the country was an outstanding example of the lethargy and maladministration of the pre-war Ottoman régime…. Oranges were grown near and around Jaffa, but most of the maritime belt was only sparsely populated and only thinly cultivated. Esdraelon for the most part was marshy and malarial. Eastwards, beyond the Jordan, nothing remained of the Greek cities of classical times, save one or two groups of deserted ruins. Southwards, in Beersheba, once the site of several prosperous towns, all trace of urban life had long lain buried under the encroaching sand". My Lords, I have referred here to the names of cities and towns which are still being used, some of which are in Israel. I hope that noble Lords will take the opportunity to visit that country, particularly that part about which I have just read, and see for themselves how people with energy and muscle who can work and who give no thought to time have made those deserts bloom and have turned sandy wastes into thriving towns.

My Lords, may I now present some facts. There are 20 Arab States, the majority of them formed after the Second World War and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said, they cover vast territories, about 5 million square miles. They are underdeveloped and, in spite of a population of about 125 million, are still very much underpopulated. In contrast, there is the tiny State of Israel—the only place in the world where Jews are in a majority, and even then Israelis, Jews and others number only about 3 ¼ million in total—with an area of only about 35,000 square miles.

This little State with its remarkable pioneering achievements is a democracy, the only one in the Middle East and one whose institutions are largely modelled on our own. There can be no question but that the interest of our country lies in peace and stability in the Middle East. If the other members of the European Community are prepared to support our policy based on Resolution 338 as interpreted by the British Government, a Resolution which calls for negotiations between the parties themselves, then the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, can play an historic part. Unfortunately, as we know, France, one of the members of the European Community, has clearly committed herself in one direction and, as a result, it is difficult to see how the European Community can command at this time the confidence of both sides.

The ideal aim is a final peace—permanent and without interim arrangements—and this can be achieved only by Israel and the Arab States sitting down together, without preconditions, in a spirit of good will. Such a result would bring incalculable benefits to the whole region and remove once and for all the greatest danger spot from which a world conflagration could arise. Israel has stated constantly, and as recently as last weekend—and this was said by its Prime Minister—that it is ready for immediate talks and also for territorial concessions. However, one must recognise that, unfortunately, this permanent peace is unlikely of achievement at this moment, but it must inevitably come sooner or later; sooner, if the Soviet Government were genuinely to lend its efforts in this direction.

The alternative to direct negotiations is to continue a step-by-step method, and achieved the separation of forces on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts. It was Dr. Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy which prepared the ground for that agreement. It seems to me that we must continue at present to support the United States' initiative; for in its efforts lies the best chance of achievement in the short term. Let us, however, continue to hope and to work, for there is no substitute for a permanent peace which can be based only on good will and, hopefully, a growing realisation of the tremendous benefits in which all would share. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for initiating this debate, because any action that is taken along the path to peace can only be applauded.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, upon his maiden speech, especially as I agree with every single word of it, and I hope that he will continue to address this House on the subject, on which he is clearly an expert, on many future occasions. It was an admirable maiden speech, brief and to the point.

I rise to speak only briefly in this short debate, but I want to say that this country, above all others, has a moral obligation towards Israel. The Balfour Declaration was a turning point. We accepted the mandate for Palestine and we promised a national home for the Jews to Chaim Weizmann, and that was binding. The mandate and the national home we can never abandon. Dr. Weizmann's evidence to the Peel Commission in favour of partition was conclusive, and that is what the Peel Commission recommended.

Then came the terrible time under Ernest Bevin, when we threw up the mandate, and abandoned the Jews to their fate at odds of about 12 to 1. We hoped then for the dissolution of the national home and perhaps for the establishment of a system of cantons on the lines of Switzerland. On the whole—and this is odd—Bevin had the House of Commons on his side. The late Dick Crossman and myself fought a forlorn and rather lonely battle against great odds when it looked as if the Jews were going to be exterminated. But in the end the Jews won the war of liberation, and the State of Israel was established.

Now in my opinion Weizmann, who was a very close friend of mine and one whom I venerated and loved, was a man, of all the men I have known, of commanding genius, who had certain essential qualities of greatness which I never detected in any other. He was a very remarkable man and he concentrated upon this country because then this country had the necessary power. We had conquered Palestine during the 1914–18 war; we were the mandatory Power; we had the power to establish the Jewish national State. He brought it off. It seemed to many of us at the time that it was a miracle; but he achieved it, he succeeded, and all I want to say now is that appeasement does not pay. We found that out in the 1930s—some of us to our bitter cost. Some of us fought hard against appeasement. I smell the smell of oily appeasement at the present moment on the part of the Western Powers.

Europe is not behaving well in the face of this Arab blackmail—because blackmail it is. If we had co-ordinated more closely with the United States of America I think we could have done a much better job, but we have all gone off, one by one, to the Arab countries to do the best deal possible. That is not good. It is not good for the whole of the Middle East, and it is not good for Israel. The Western Powers at the moment are in disarray. We are not working closely with the United States of America; we are not working closely together in Europe. We are working, on the whole, against each other; and that works against Israel.

I do not think that the problem of Israel is as complicated as might appear to be the case. Jerusalem must be made, and must continue to be, the capital city, but an open city with free access to the holy places. This the Jews are readily prepared to accord to members of all faiths. In my opinion, the Golan Heights should be policed by a United Nations force which would keep the parties apart and prevent Israel from being under constant threat, the Kibbutzim in particular, from these Heights. I think there should be a substantial withdrawal by Israel from the Sinai Peninsular. Ben Gurion once said to me after the 1960 war, that he would be prepared to concede this. Finally, there should be viable frontiers for Israel which could be defended. All these things can, and should be, negotiated at Geneva.

My Lords, the State of Israel must be preserved. We betrayed it at one moment; we must not betray it again. As I have already said, we have a moral obligation to the State of Israel which we did much to create and which, with the co-operation of Weizmann, we in fact created. Weizmann dreamed a dream. I repeat to your Lordships, he had elements of greatness that I have never found in any other man I have ever met. Weizmann made that dream come true in terms of real life, and that can be said of no other man of our time, except Lenin. He was an artist who worked through the most difficult of all the media—human beings—over whom he cast a spell, the like of which I have never seen in my life. Lloyd George, Balfour, Churchill and Amery all fell under him. Because of this, the State of Israel exists today, the only democratic State in the Middle East. But Weizmann ended his life with a note of warning, and I think his line now would be one of caution. In his last words to Meyer Weisgal, his great friend, and mine, he said: I have loyal friends, more than I deserve. Tell them not to permit the destruction of the thing that we have laboured to build. We Jews can do something very good, and something which can be an honour to us and to mankind, but we must not spoil it. We are an impetuous people, and sometimes we spoil and destroy what has taken generations to build up. My Lords, I believe there is a good chance of a settlement in the Middle East if we do not indulge in a policy of total and rabid appeasement towards the Arab States—and I have seen signs of that lately. I conclude my speech by quoting the words of a Psalm which all of us sing: Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep".

6.44 p.m.

Lord JANNER

My Lords, it is rather interesting to hear in the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, the words of the Psalmist of and in the national home of the Jewish people. I would invite some of our friends over here to have another look around the Houses of Parliament, and to visit the room where those of us who are Life Peers and others originally robed ourselves. There one sees the picture of the figure of Moses bringing down the Ten Commandments, which unhappily now are being shattered by certain elements in the UN. He enjoined Joshua to take the Israelites into the Jewish homeland. For thousands of years the Jewish homeland has been in existence, and, consequently, the natural result of the continuance of that is Israel—the Jewish homeland of today. There are few who realise that.

In the same room there is a painting of Daniel and, on the staircase walls leading to the Terrace, Hezekiah and Judas Maccabeus. It is perhaps interesting today to realise that the saviour of civilisation, the person who wrested Jerusalem from the Pagans, from the idolators, was Judas Maccabeus, the anniversary of whose bravery and whose rescue of Jerusalem to which I have referred, happens to be this week, and is celebrated by Jews throughout the world. It would be interesting for some of our friends, who attempt to deny the right of Israel to be the Jewish national home, to think about that. Perhaps they should also walk into the inner Lobby of the House of Commons and see the statues of the people whom we regard as being worth commemorating—the Zionists, Balfour, Lloyd George and Churchill. These are matters which might be of interest to some of those who for years have been attempting to belittle the idea of the Balfour Declaration and the re-creation of the Jewish national home.

My Lords, I have been saved a considerable amount of what I would otherwise have said by the excellent speeches already made. May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, with whom I have worked for many years, and who holds an office which I held some years ago, on the extremely excellent speech he made. I am quite certain that noble Lords, even if they hold views contrary to those expressed by my noble friend Lord Fisher, will want to hear him speak on many occasions in the future in consequence of the way in which he presented his case. I would say to my noble friends Lord Sainsbury and Lord Boothby that they have admirably presented a case which, in my humble way, I have endeavoured to present over a period of years.

But, in addition to what they have implied or expressed in their speeches, I am concerned that the lights have gone out at the United Nations. They have gone out because the UN have allowed a declared assassin—who has practised every conceivable kind of attack on human beings, who has sent his people to shoot children one by one in a schoolroom—to speak. I would say this to my noble friend Lord Chelwood, whose speech was an interesting one. We have no time, and I do not propose at this stage to go into details by answering some of the points of the noble Lord, but, in the main, he has obviously presented us with a Motion which everyone would like to come into effect—if it could be achieved. We should try to achieve it; there is no question about that. He has done us a service by introducing the Motion.

I have lived through some terrible experiences. Arafat is an assassin, a declared murderer, and even when delivering the speech he made which defiled the United Nations Assembly the other day, he took a gun with him and threatened that he would have whatever he wanted by any means. How can we deal with a man of that description? How can we deal with an organisation of that description? I have with me dozens of quotations from speeches he has made, from the declarations that came from his organisation. Let us have no doubt about this. They intend to do what, horrifkally, Hitler did, but perhaps in a different way. I hope your Lordships will forgive me, but it just so happens that these matters have left an imprint on very many of us.

I remember when people stood up, I believe some in Parliament, and said that if Hitler was returned he would not carry into effect what he had declared in Mein Kampf. But Hitler did carry it into effect and killed 6 million Jews and the predecessors of Arafat, under and with the Grand Mufti, were there in Germany with him helping to arrange to kill those 6 million people. And we are told, apart from anything else, that there is no responsibility to be attached to the Arab world, even for doing something for those who survived that holocaust, in spite of the Grand Mufti's efforts to destroy them. I wish some of our friends who are considering this position would realise that there is a moral obligation not only on Germany, but on the Arab world to deal with the effects of that matter.

Israel has shown itself to be an example to the world by the way in which it has carried on since 1948. Indeed before then, I remember taking Members of Parliament on the first Parliamentary delegation that went out, in order to show them what Jews are. I took them, with my wife, in 1934 to see what the Jews had done in fighting against the ravages of nature, the erosion which had taken place there, and to show them what Jews really were and are, so that they would understand that Hitler's propaganda was based on falsehoods and semi-truths. I want to say this: for Heaven's sake, do not let us today forsake the moral standing that we hold in the world. Morality is as important to us as it is to any nation in the world.

Today the United Nations presents to the world not an image of the original United Nations with its Charter, but a distorted figure as represented in a funfair of convex and concave mirrors. It is our duty, I think, to try to bring a moral outlook on the position. If we look at it in that way we will see that the PLO, which is the instrument of the Devil, should not be a participant in discussions even on behalf of the Arabs themselves; because it is a disaster to them as it is to the rest of the civilised world. There can be no question about it—they should not have the authority, nor should they become the people to tell the other Arabs what they are to do. I think the Arabs have fallen into a very serious mistake by the foolish action that they took at the United Nations.

And what is going to happen to Israel supposing their plan comes about? The PLO are out to destroy Israel. They want the land surrounding Israel, and by gradual steps, to take back land, to positions to which even some of the noble Lords in this House would have the Israelis pushed back, surrounding them in that way so that within seconds they could achieve, if not this year in years to come, their evil purpose of destroying Israel. Not only is their purpose to destroy Israel; their State so-called requires every single Jew and Jewess who was not there in 1917 to become an alien and to be thrown out. But where?

My Lords, I do appeal to the Government and the Opposition not to sell their souls for a mess of pottage; it is not worth it and nothing will be gained by it. Rather they should direct their attention towards the civilised world coming together in order to solve the energy problem, and to solve the terrorist problem, and to follow the directives which were set by the great prophets of that land.

I conclude with one other thought. The disgrace that has come to UNESCO by its resolution against Israel at the present moment is sufficient to bring us to a real understanding of the position. Israel, a land which stands for culture, for giving all its citizens education, for building universities, for all that we commend, a land that takes into its fold every Jewish immigrant who comes there from oppression and gives him or her a decent living and dignified citizenship, is attacked in UNESCO of all organisations. I think it is a lesson to us all. I pray that we will encourage the parties' coming together to work out a solution, as was started by Kissinger, and that we will not fall into the terrible error of supporting assassins as being the persons to direct the welfare and the future of the Middle East.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, may I remind the House that the speeches will have to be very much shorter. The average now, if your Lordships want a reply from the Government, is 7 to 8 minutes per noble Lord.

7.0 p.m.

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, I shall try to do my best. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, even although, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I am not in agreement with him. He put over his point of view so nicely that it was a pleasure to listen to him, and I hope that we shall hear him again. In the last year or 15 months we have seen the revival of Arab power to a position that it has not held since the early Middle Ages. Every Arab from Agadir to Abu Dhabi realises this. He also realises that the Arab world can at last do something about the injustices imposed upon them—I regret to say most of them by the British, followed by the Americans and the French in that order. I think it is worth recalling the asininities of British policy during and after World War I.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting may I ask what injustices we have ever imposed upon the Arabs? We conquered the Turks, and released them all and gave them all the power that they have at the present time. What injustices has Britain ever imposed upon the Arab world?

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, if the noble Lord had had the civility to wait until I had said what I was going on to say, I would have gone on to tell him. It might have worked if we had followed one of them, but I think it must be obvious that they were all mutually contradictory, and they were the seed bed of our present difficulties. The Sykes-Picot agreement was a straightforward 19th century carve-up of the Ottoman Empire. The promises of the Foreign Office to Emir Feisal, made before the Balfour Declaration, of a re-united Arab world were probably the course of action we should have followed. But we broke those promises. Not only did we break them after the war, but we broke them during it. The India Office was supporting Ibn Saud against Emir Feisal. Finally there was the idiocy of the Balfour Declaration—and, incidentally, when the Prime Minister says that Britain stands by it, he is wrong. It was partially revoked by the Peel Commission.

Also, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, says, the Declaration never promised a Jewish State. It promised a national home for the Jews without prejudice to the rights of the existing inhabitants, and without giving foreign Jews extra privileges. Those are the words of the Balfour Declaration. I could go on, but I conclude that this was a way of absolving Christianity's guilt over its treatment of the Jews at the expense of others. The Muslims have hardly ever been anti-semitic—the Christians have frequently. Mohammedanism, as your Lordships know, is an extremely tolerant religion. After all, in the fourth most holy mosque in all Islam, the Hummayad in Damascus, there is a Christian shrine—the place where John the Baptist was killed.

We have heard a great deal recently of Ma'alot and Kypioim Shamona, but we have forgotten the "Patra", a ship carrying banned Jewish immigrants to Palestine, blown up by Haganah, later to become the regular Israeli army, when 240 Jewish people were killed. We have forgotten that Irgun and the Stern gang killed, according to the Red Cross, 254 men, women and children at Deir Yassan in 1948. We probably never knew that on 8th September 1972 the Israeli air force bombed villages in Syria and killed 200 people. We hardly realised that the Israeli army systematically destroyed what was left of the habitable bits of Kuneitra before it withdraw.

My Lords, I do not produce these random examples with any sense of relish or delight, but just to try to redress the balance a little. I also produce them to show why there is so much bitterness in the Arab world. The Arab case has tended to go by default in the Western world, partly because we are all brought up in the traditions of the Old Testament, and partly because of our guilt over our treatment of the Jewish people; partly also because Arabic is a very flowery language, and when translated tends to sound extreme. Why, for instance, has Senator Jackson worked so hard to allow the Jews free emigration out of their Russian homeland where they are now privileged citizens—and I say "privileged" advisedly. The Crimea Tartars are not even allowed to their own homes in Russia. Why has he not worked equally hard for the right of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland, where those who remain are second-class citizens? I think we know. Zionism has votes in the United States.

Lord SAINSBURY

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Will he give the House the benefit of evidence that Palestinians living within Israel are not better off, in terms of employment and remuneration and democratic rights, than they are in many Arab countries?

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, I think I could do that, and I will do it later if the noble Lord wants. I do not have it with me now. Also, I do not think it can be denied that the Palestinians still in Israel are second-class citizens compared to the Jewish immigrants there. What should we be aiming at as a just solution? Obviously, we cannot have another diaspora, or another Massada. Massada, with Israel owning atomic weapons as she has just admitted, is, as has been printed in the Press, akin to Samson pulling down the Temple on top of himself as well as the Philistines, only this time the Temple could easily be full of English, French, Russians, Americans, and others, as well as those same Philistines.

Since last year, the situation has become far more dangerous. If the Arabs can see no prospect of peace, and a just one, they have not only the oil weapon for the next round, if it were to come next spring, but, above all, they have, as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has said, the money weapon. They are now sitting on 80,000 million dollars. What happens to the world's monetary system if, because of Western aid to prop up an intractable Israel, they dump that amount of money, and more (because the sum will go up between now and next spring) into the world's money markets? There will be complete chaos. We would be hurt far more than the Arabs. This factor together with Israel's possession of atomic weapons, makes the Middle East time bomb one of the most dangerous since World War II.

Yet there are signs of hope. Yasser Arafat has come in from the cold—and I say this because of the reaction shown by the PLO over the recent Tunis hijacking. The Israelis really must not say that they will not negotiate with terrorists, because if they carried that to its logical conclusion they could not speak to half of the Knesset. Ygal Allon commanded the Palmach, Sharom was a terrorist, as was Menacheim Begin, the former leader of Irgun Zvei Leumi. Arafat, whom I have met, is a very tough and rather unpleasant man. But I am convinced that he wants to settle. Somehow, Israel must negotiate with him.

Several Palestinian high-ups in the PLO whom I have met have this attitude, and I quote one of them, Peace must come within five years, and a great many people on both sides will have to give up some of their most cherished beliefs". I would suggest to Israel that if she were to suspend the law of return until after the Palestinians have been allowed home, this would be such a major concession that Arafat could in return say, "I will, with immediate effect, stop any terrorist or guerilla action", call it what you will.

He now controls the PLO. There is, after all, enough money in the West and in the oil States to subscribe massively to a fund for resettlement. There is enough technical brilliance in Israel—and no one more than I admires the technically brilliant things that Jewish immigrants into Israel have done—to make the desert flower; and think, my Lords, of the arms bills that could be cut.

Our aim should be to make sure that all the people who at present inhabit the Levant shall live in peace and prosperity and after the Palestinians have been properly resettled there should be a home for the persecuted Jews, in the words of the Balfour Declaration, Without prejudice to the rights of the existing inhabitants". But I do not think it right that an Englishman of the Jewish religion, as Edwin Montagu described himself, as Secretary of State for India at the time of the Balfour Declaration, should have special privileges. After all, my Lords, the Balfour Declaration also said that if something along these lines could happen then, in the words of the 105th Psalm, Egypt could be, glad at their departing for they were afraid of them". This quotation shows that the problem has rumbled on for 3,000 years. The Book of Samuel is full of battles for the Golan Heights. It also shows that it was difficult then. It is certainly no simpler now, but solve it the world must, without injustice to either side, or we shall end up in a bankrupt radioactive waste land.

7.10 p.m.

Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE

My Lords, in this short debate I do not wish to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and others have already said so well. But the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has in some of his remarks brought out something which we must not ignore in considering this grim and dangerous subject. There is no such thing as a monolithic Arab point of view and no such thing as a monolithic Jewish point of view. We must look rather more closely at the facts of the situation. There are different voices in the Arab world, different points of view expressed in the Knesset. We axe all seeking, not just for the sake of the citizens of Israel, or of the Arab world, but for ourselves as well, and the whole world indeed, to get down to the realities of the Middle East situation. One reality, as has already been stated, is that there are 125 million Arabs and 3 million Jews; there are 20 Arab States to one Jewish State.

In recent years—even in recent months—there has been an addition of such enormous wealth to the Arab world that it can buy techniques, weapons, allies to such an extent that, if the situation in the Middle East was simply a confrontation between Israel and the Arab world, Israel could be driven into the sea. Let me say at once to my Jewish friends that I am not suggesting that they would not fight to the last man. Of course they would. But who for one minute would try to say that Israel, with all its bravery—and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has paid tribute to its technical skills—could save itself if the numbers, the wealth and the new techniques of the Arab world were consolidated and moved in against it? It would be impossible.

I want to give a parallel illustration. There are some matters that lie heavy on our conscience. I have no time to deal with these in detail. Spain I mention in passing. Then who asked, "Where is Czechoslovakia?" I pass—to illustrate what I have in mind—to the position of Yugoslavia immediately after the Second World War. Marshal Tito was threatened by Soviet Russia. The Soviet Union threatened Yugoslavia that if it did not toe the line then Soviet Russia would march. One day the full minutes of the British Cabinet of those days will be revealed, but enough is already known.

There was an agonising argument inside that Cabinet, deciding what would be the policy of our country. Remember, my Lords, we had just emerged from the Second World War with cities blitzed and all the other drastic consequences. Nevertheless, the decision made by the British Cabinet of that day—firm, clear and unequivocal—which was stated from the Front Bench of the House of Commons by my husband Aneurin Bevan (speaking not for himself but for the whole Cabinet) was that if the Russians moved we would be involved. The Yugoslavs are a brave people and would have fought to the last man. Of course it was a very dangerous and difficult decision to make, but we made it. I do not think that anyone looking back would say that we made the wrong decision. I give that parallel illustration, because I think we have to stop talking in generalities.

I believe that the greatest contribution we can make to peace for our own future, as well as for the future of all the peoples of the Middle East, would be a clear, unequivocal statement that if any Arab Power tried to carry out the threat, which some of them are making, to drive the Jews into the sea, that if Israel——

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, would the noble Baroness name me one Arab State that has ever threatened to drive the Jews into the sea?

Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE

Yes, of course, my Lords—the whole of the terrorist movement, Syria and the rest, have said it again and again. This is part of the trouble. It would be easier to reach a settlement if we could get a clear statement from Syria and from the terrorist movement that they recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist, but they will not give it. Therefore, I am saying that the 125 million Arabs should not be betrayed into a holocaust which would destroy them as well as the rest. Something, then, has to be done in order to restrain the impossible terrorist groups, and those who are still not prepared to say that the State of Israel will exist. Israel's frontiers can be guaranteed only if Britain and, I hope, America and other countries will say, "Right, if there is any move to invade Israel we are involved."

My Lords, I have the memory—I am watching the time—to go back 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was talking about his friendship with Dr. Weizmann, Weisgal and the rest. I, Aneurin Bevan and many others, were closely associated with the idealistic beginnings of the State of Israel and how they gathered the poor people of every race to give them a home. Also, I remember how, immediately after the Second World War, we were very conscious of 6 million men, women and children, stripped naked and thrust into the gas chambers of Hitler. In fact, we owed a debt to the Jewish people. Forget the Balfour Declaration and everything else, my Lords. We owed a debt, that there should be some place on earth for the State of Israel and, more than any other country in the world, it was our decision which was responsible for the beginning of the State of Israel. So we were involved.

But the tragedy is that it would have been so much easier to decide this issue 20 years ago. I remember going to Egypt, Jordan and then down into Israel. I have a letter sent by Colonel Nasser to my husband in December 1953. Colonel Nasser said: It gives me great pleasure to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome you to Egypt, as it is well known that you always take a particular interest in the welfare and raising of social standards of the people. I enclose here two pamphlets concerning the land reform in Egypt, a copy of a Press conference with the members of the higher committee, and a report on the new social projects in Egypt". That was 20 years ago. We went first to Egypt. We talked to Nasser and to General Neguib. We discussed with them not only their problems, but Israel's problems. I have the report here from The Times when General Neguib replied. These are his words: You need have no fears about the Egyptians. They will never attack Israel. Fifty thousand Jews live secure in our country. That was Neguib. There was no doubt that Nasser, who was a younger man, wanted to come to terms with Israel.

The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was talking about the late Richard Crossman. He was a dedicated Zionist, more than I and others were. He was one of the people who made our contacts with Nasser and other Arabs. That is why I say there is no such thing as a monolithic Arab point of view. There were Arabs then and there are Arabs now who fervently want a settlement on the basis of recognising the right of Israel to exist. On the Israeli side, there is at the present moment as Foreign Secretary of Israel, Ygal Allon. Even 20 years ago, Ygal Allon was making us welcome in Israel and was very close to us in his point of view. There he was, ready to make concessions. It would have been very much better for Israel if he had been the Foreign Secretary during the last ten years instead of his predecessor. But this is not something new. I am stressing the fact that there are different Israel points of view as well as different Arab points of view, and we are fortunate in having, in Ygal Allon, a Foreign Secretary who was born in Israel and who has many Arab friends.

Indeed—and, because of the time, I must finish on this—the moment of greatest hope for Aneurin Bevan and myself was the evening when we crossed from Jordan into Israel, because in Jordan we were the guests of a residential school for Arab boys aged from 13 to 17, and when we crossed on to the Israeli side again we were taking messages to the same kind of residential school. There were the Arab boys on one side and the Israeli boys on the other. They were children who had become destitute or who were orphans. They were being brought up in identical atmospheres. They even looked like one another! There were wonderful people on both sides who were looking after those adolescents, who knew one another very well and who were in continual communication. Those boys whom I met twenty years ago, and who were then in their teens, will now be in their thirties, of course, or about 40. The tragedy of history is that the best of the Arabs and the best of the Jews have been out-voted, out-talked, out-manoeuvred by other types, so that we have now to get back into communication with those on both sides who will make a sensible compromise with one another.

When we talked to Nasser, to Neguib, to Ygal Allon and to all the others, they all knew that a settlement would be a compromise, but the essential of that compromise is that Israel must be secure. Because if, instead of all this heartbreaking wealth being spent on arms, that wonderful technique of the Jewish people could meet with the growing technique of the Arab world, they could make a paradise. They must remove the poison of those camps, which were deliberately kept there with people living in them in foul conditions in order that hatred should never die. That is why I said there is no such thing as a monolithic Arab point of view. One thinks of the wealthy Arabs. Wealth has come to some Arabs recently, but there was great wealth in some States among some Arabs and then the nobles and the wealthy moved out, leaving the poor Arabs to rot and as fodder for their hatred. It is that poison and that hatred with which we have to deal. I believe they can be dealt with. I believe there is a Government in Israel at the present moment which is willing—indeed, fervently concerned—to make a just settlement, and I know that among the Arab people (because I have my friends there, too) there are many of them, civilised and compassionate, who have no more wish to see a holocaust in the Middle East than any of us has.

7.24 p.m.

Lord CARADON

My Lords, one of the advantages, perhaps, of our short debates is that it is made unnecessary for us to follow all the previous speakers in what they have said. In the short and lessening time which is allotted to us I wish to speak positively about the future. Many years ago I went to my first post in Jerusalem and spent many years in the Middle East; subsequently, more recently, at the United Nations, I have also been concerned with the problem of the Middle East. I would therefore ask your Lordships' permission, in the few minutes we have, to speak very briefly, first of all, of the dangers which exist and then of the requirements for a lasting peace, after which I should like to say something about the procedures and the methods by which we can hope to move in the direction of such a peace.

I do not think we need say much more about the dangers: the dangers of the continuing miseries of the refugees, certainly; the dangers of mountains of armaments on both sides; the dangers of the two super-Powers now on a conflict course which could involve so easily and so rapidly the whole world; and the dangers of the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike, which can lead to fighting at any time with no notice at all.

Yes, my Lords, those are all dangers, but I sometimes think that the greatest danger of all—and I felt it very strongly when I was on both sides of the Jordan a month or two ago—is the tremendous gulf which exists between the attitudes, the ideas, the conceptions of the two sides. There are those on one side who believe that they can recover territories now occupied by Israel without any expectation or assurance of a lasting peace. That is a delusion. There are those on the other side who believe that they can win peace by military domination. That is an utter delusion. There is a further delusion that I hear sometimes from one side or the other: that delay may be to the advantage of one or the other. I think that may be the greatest delusion of all, because delay now will mean, as I believe, that there is a certainty of conflict, bringing bloodshed and devastation greater than we can imagine. Thus there is an urgency in dealing with a problem so explosive that it behoves us to be very careful what we say and which makes it very necessary for us to think carefully as to how we can proceed.

I would speak for a moment about the requirements, as I would see them, for a lasting peace. First of all, I think that it must be comprehensive. We do not want any piecemeal attempt. A piecemeal peace is a contradiction in terms: there has to be a determination to see the whole picture. No-one will give anything up until they can see what they will get; and it is necessary now for all of us to review the whole situation and to see how a peace can be secured which can give to all concerned some reasonable expectation of a life without fear and the threat of force. The second requirement is that the peace must be international. We hear this evening—and I respect what is put to us—that a European initiative is necessary. I hope that Europe can act, and can act together; but I do not think that is sufficient. There has been too much of an attempt on one side or the other, with the United States supporting the one side and the Soviet Union supporting the other. It is far too serious a situation to be dealt with by the super-Powers scoring off one another. The place at which we must seek to obtain agreement is in the Security Council of the United Nations, where, as in 1967, we worked to obtain the agreement of the Russians and the Americans—and we got it. It is only when one obtains that agreement that one can look forward to a real, lasting peace.

I would go on to say that the principles upon which we decided in 1967 are still effective. Despite what has been said by some in this House this evening, the principles were fully accepted, repeatedly accepted, by Egypt and Jordan, and by the Lebanon; and they were accepted, too, by Israel—for purposes of negotiation, at least. These principles which were laid down are fully accepted by the principal participants. The third requirement is that we must not abandon what was done at that time, when every country represented in the Security Council voted for this unanimous result.

The fourth requirement is a recognition of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people. To deny that right, to speak as if these people have no right to be heard when, whatever we say about the history and however we differ about the record, they surely must be heard; for they are concerned and concerned deeply. When I go to their camps I see them in mud and misery. Therefore, it is necessary that we should accept that self-determination for the Palestine people is a purpose that we must know must be satisfied if there is to be peace.

I remember a statement made long before the Rabat Conference by King Hussein. He said: Israel has stated that it will not tolerate an independent State of Palestine on the West Bank. Israel has no right to make such a decision. Neither have I. No one has the right to make that decision save the Palestinians. That was King Hussein speaking, long before the decision at Rabat. It must surely be accepted now, it is a commitment, it is a right, that the Palestinian people must be heard and must have a right to decide their own future. I do not wish to get into controversy with what has been said today, but when there has been a denial to all the Palestinians now in occupied territory to undertake any political activity in these matters, I do not think we can be told that we can select who is to speak on their behalf.

I now turn, my Lords, to what may be an even more important point. What can be done now, what stage can we reach, what process can we adapt to escape from a deadlock that no one wishes to see continue? I would suggest that there must be as rapidly as possible a return to Geneva, a resumption of the Geneva discussions which were instituted at the end of last year. I would suggest, too, that there should be two stages perhaps in this resumed Geneva Conference. The first would be to bring together those who came to the discussions at the end of last year and they would resume where they left off. There would be a great deal of preparatory work to be done by a series of independent Commissions, headed by people of an international stature to work on boundaries, work on the refugees and work on the future of Jerusalem, for instance. Let them put that work in train and in going to such a conference again they go, I would suggest, with an assurance that would have to be worked out by consultations—for that is what the United Nations system is for—that the Palestinian rights and claims would be fully considered at the peace conference, and that at the second stage of this conference they would be welcome to come and to speak to their claims.

That would mean that those who went before could go again. And it would not be a decision of any one country but a decision of the United Nations' sponsors of the Conference. It would be known that at the second stage the Palestinians would come and would be welcome and would be heard and that their rights would be fully considered. I believe that that might be a method of escape from the deadlock that no one wants and which could otherwise prevent the advance that we all wish to see.

My Lords, I wish I could follow the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—my noble friend, I may call him—in speaking about the future of Jerusalem. I believe that it may be, as he suggests, the core of the whole problem. It could be that you have an Arab Jerusalem and an Israeli Jerusalem in an undivided city on a basis of equality with freedom of movement both ways. Could it not be that this could be the beginning of a new relationship of mutual respect and equality and justice? It may be that he was right in his generous imagination in thinking that Jerusalem could provide not a barrier but a gateway to peace.

Finally, my Lords, I hope it will be that our Government is not lacking in initiative. We have seen in Cyprus recently our failure to act when it was necessary to act, and the disastrous consequences. We in Cyprus and we in the Middle East have an historic responsibility. We also have an urgent, pressing obligation. I hope that as we acted once before there is no reason, it seems to me, why we should delay in Cyprus any longer. There is no reason why we should not be prepared to take the initiative in the Middle East. All the speeches tonight indicated our historical obligation. We did it in 1967 and I hope that not much time will pass in 1975 before there is another British initiative to show the way to working towards a lasting peace.

7.35 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, because as a diplomat with unique experience in this field he sees with great objectivity the entire subject with which we are concerned this evening. It is a truism that this subject arouses the deepest passions, but if I may be allowed to state my interest in the first instance as one of the vice-chairmen of the Standing Conference of British organisations for aid to refugees, my interest throughout the Middle East area is with the refugees themselves. Your Lordships will be aware that it is just over 12 months since we in your Lordships' House considered the world refugee situation.

I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what was said in a very important debate in March when, in a rare and exceedingly interesting speech, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said in his closing remarks: Toleration and co-operation is what the world needs if it is to survive; and it is what we need at home, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Col. 168; 14/3/74.] Those sentiments were very well reflected on the other side of the House in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who in the same debate, said: Aid to the sick and sad and poor of the world must surely be one of the priorities of foreign policy of any civilised Government."—[Col. 188] Therefore I claim your Lordships' attention in this particular field because I consider—and I am sure that this is shared on all sides of the House—that the relief of suffering is one of the very important aims of foreign policy with which we should concern ourselves rather than solely the polemics of the situation.

I would draw your Lordships' attention to three particular spheres. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, drew our attention to Cyprus, not for the first time this afternoon because, as your Lordships will recollect, a Starred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned the position of refugees, both Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot on the wrong side of the truce line in the island. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government—I do not expect a reply this evening, but possibly at a later date—whether they have clearly in mind the specific problems of those two ethnic groups, and whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will lend their best endeavours to the tracing agency of the British Red Cross Society and kindred bodies in the league to trace the whereabouts of relatives of both communities in the island.

My Lords, I turn to the Palestine Arab refugee situation. I have been concerned in works abroad as my noble friend Lord Gowrie has been concerned in a personal capacity in years past in Jordan; but I make no particular claim to greater knowledge than he or any Member of this House. I have merely had contact with UNWRA over the last 20 years and it was with great sorrow that I read this year of the likely deficit increasing from 3.9 million dollars to a fantastic 39 million dollars. The change in a decimal point will make a world of difference in the budget of this organisation which has struggled from year to year in the most remarkable way. It is perfectly obvious that the organisation will be in a most parlous position for the next 12 months.

In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to a figure, which I noted most carefully, of 88 million dollars, which is approximately the budget for this year, but in 1975 it rises sharply to a total of 110 million dollars. This is a very substantial change. The cause is undoubtedly the rate of inflation in all the territories adjoining the problem. Your Lordships will be aware that Israel's inflation has been no less than 47 per cent. during the period dealt with in the Report of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, that is, 1st July 1973, to 30th June 1974. During that period, the rate of inflation in Syria has been 11 per cent. This has had a very marked effect on the purchasing power of UNRWA itself in the particular categories of goods which it requires.

I draw your Lordships' attention to the agency's problems in the purchase of flour, one of the basic ingredients of the daily ration. The cost has increased extremely sharply. It has enormously reduced the feeding programme and has been due very largely to the dollar devaluation and to a number of other factors. I should like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the most urgent need of the Relief and Works Agency and to stress to both colleagues and partners in the EEC, but most especially to the OPEC and AOPEC countries, the vital need for an increased budget during 1975–76. It is surely the OPEC and AOPEC countries which should make a further contribution, as several noble Lords have heartily recommended. What does this budget mean? It means that the most dramatic cut in the services will be inevitable unless this need is met and I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, would feel, with all those concerned with UNESCO, how unfortunate it would be if the higher grade of education being conducted by the Agency were eliminated altogether, as would almost certainly be the consequence of a reduction in the budget.

My Lords, my time is limited and I must draw to a close with one specific problem which has not been mentioned by your Lordships; that is, the situation in Northern Iraq. It is almost entirely thanks to a British freelance journalist, Andrew Murray, who paid a visit there from mid-August to early September, 1974, that this has received any attention in the British Press. I feel that he deserves the warmest congratulation on going to a forward area at great personal danger to himself. The economic blockade of foodstuffs which took place in Iraq to prevent the Kurds from obtaining both a livelihood and medical supplies is a matter which all sides of the House will most heartily condemn. After the breakdown of talks on 11th March, when the KDP—the Kurdish Democratic Party—found it necessary to reject the Iraqi Government's offer of limited autonomy (and I stress that word "limited") there followed the inevitable sanctions against the Kurdish people. But far worse than that, there was bombing of the Kurdish population in Kirkuk, Mosul and Zakho, where the Iraqi Forces pushed Kurdish tribesmen out of the area into the Northern and most mountainous regions. In the first two months of fighting, 1,534 civilians were killed in the bombing by Iraqi Forces and 3,500 injured.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, at about 20 mintues before the end of the debate, whoever may be speaking is expected to give way to the Minister, so that the House may hear the Government's reply.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I am more than ready to sit down in about 30 seconds, if I am permitted to do that, and I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said. I should like to close by drawing your Lordships' attention to the very substantial casualties which have taken place and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be drawing the attention of the Security Council to this important problem in a remote area.

7.45 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I rise with very great reluctance at this time because I am conscious of having been the unwitting cause of my noble friend Lord Brockway being unable to take part in this debate. However, like him and every other Member of this House, I am bound by the rules—if one may call them that—which truncate the Back-Bench debate at the time mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jacques. We have listened to a number of extremely distinguished speeches on the Middle East, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, who set the tone of the debate with a speech which was notable because it combined clarity, cogency and restraint. The noble Lord indicated his natural sympathies, but in such a way that those who did not always agree with him readily accorded him credit for a sincerity and a readiness to discuss with them their own points of view in a constructive fashion.

As the noble Lord and others pointed out, the Middle East is an area in which Britain has important interests at risk. First, there is the humanitarian interest which we all share; an interest in preventing the personal tragedies which each successive war has brought to both sides. Then we have the specific interests of maintaining the peace. There is always the danger that a new war in the Middle East might not be limited to the States immediately involved, but could draw the super-Powers into a conflagration which would surely overwhelm us all. Then there are our large and legitimate economic interests. The energy resources of the area will long continue to be of crucial importance to this country and the Western world, and we should not forget that the whole of the Middle East is a market of growing importance and interest to us.

At this point, may I say how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on one point he made; that is, the need for us to seek co-operation not confrontation with the oil producers. I am sure that he would join me in emphasising that any such co-operation must include recognition of the rightful interests of Israel. Against that background, I wish I could say that an outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East was unlikely at present. I wish that I could say that with certainty, but. unfortunately, neither I nor anybody else can do so. Dr. Kissinger has succeeded in negotiating the disengagement of Israeli, Syrian and Egyptian forces, but the past few months have shown how difficult it will be to achieve a full negotiated solution as called for in Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338. These would involve Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, full recognition of Israel as a sovereign State within secure and recognised borders and a place for the Palestinians. Only a month ago, it seemed that fighting was about to break out on the Golan Heights.

That is a crisis which seems to have passed, at least for the moment, but there was only one day in hand when, on 29th November, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, which separates Israeli and Syrian Forces on the Golan Heights, was granted another six months lease of life. The respite which has been gained is brief and it is most important—indeed, it is vital—that this time is not wasted. Here I join with my noble friend Lord Caradon in saying that in the next few weeks and months there must be initiatives conducted by one country or by a group of countries, which will take advantage of this brief respite and bring the parties together, so that we may start on the business of building a just and lasting peace in the area, and thereby avoid the dreadful timetable of calamities which noble Lords on both sides of the House have felt it necessary to mention during the debate. We have our eyes fixed on a very few months ahead when the worst might happen.

Therefore, we must work doubly hard in the next few months to avoid that happening.

The Government continue to believe that the best hope for a solution to the problem, and for the maintenance of peace in the area, is the American Secretary of State's tireless and skilful diplomacy. Three noble Lords touched on this point during the debate, one of them being the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I would say to the noble Lord that while there certainly will be room and opportunity for a intervention or an initiative by the Nine, I do not think that he, I or anybody else would wish such an initiative to cut across the continuing American attempt, which certainly has yielded unexpectedly good results in the past and shows better promise so far than any other possible initiative of achieving the kind of settlement we all want.

My noble friend Lord Fisher of Camden, in an admirable maiden speech—the kind of compliment I should like to have paid to him has already been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in his own inimitable way, and so I should like to say "count me in on that"—referred with some emphasis to the point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. If I have his words right, I believe my noble friend Lord Fisher emphasised the need to work with the United Stales and, indeed, to support their efforts in this matter. This was trenchantly restated by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, with the full agreement of the Government and of myself, in the very powerful speech he gave us tonight. We shall continue to give Dr. Kissinger's mediation our full support. Of course, we are ready to give a hand if the parties concerned wish us to do so but I am sure my noble friend Lord Caradon will agree that to intrude in an area where one or other of the partisans might resent our intervention, or see it as an intrusion, would hardly help the fairly promising procedures which are now on foot. Unless and until this comes about, we believe the best thing we can do is to give our support to the negotiations now in progress, but this is not to say that we have no views on what the outcome of those negotiations should be.

I can give my noble friend the fullest assurance that we remain committed to Security Council Resolution 242 as the cornerstone of a peace settlement. It must not be altered or eroded. Of course, it has become clear over seven years that Resolution 242, which I agree has held the stage and received the support of all parties concerned—and, indeed, the support of the entire world—has nevertheless shown itself capable of being added to rather than eroded, because while in 1967 that Resolution necessarily spoke of "refugees", today, as noble Lords on both sides of the House have pointed out, we have to speak of "Palestinians". That is not a derogation of 242, but is rather a necessary addition to it and a reinforcement of it. We believe that no settlement devised for the Middle East will have a chance of lasting, unless it provides a means whereby the Palestinian people can exercise their legitimate political rights—rights which, I hasten to add, must be wholly compatible with the continued and assured existence of Israel as a State.

The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made a reference which perhaps I did not fully grasp. I thought he said that the United Kingdom had acquiesced in granting observer status for the PLO at the United Nations. I can assure him that we did nothing of the kind—we voted against observer status for the PLO. At no point in regard to any other resolution did we vote for the PLO. We abstained on some of the questions because of the need to keep a balance between our recognition of the importance of the Palestinian question and the need to reaffirm our desire and our determination that the continued existence of Israel as a State should be part of any settlement. I do not think there is anyhing in the record of this country at the United Nations in regard to the four or five resolutions which came up on the question of the PLO which need divide us in this House or, indeed, in this country. A settlement, as several Members of your Lordships' House have indicated, must cater for three basic factors: Israel wants recognition of her right to exist in peace and security; her Arab neighbours want back the occupied territory; and the Palestinians want to be able to express their identity as a people.

I do not think there can be any fundamental disagreement with any one of those three points but, as my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge reminded us, we are operating in an atmosphere where the broad middle consensus, though numerically and certainly intellectually the more important sector of the field, nevertheless seems to carry less weight than the perimeters of friction, which exercise a greater threat. It will be a hard task to mobilise, as my noble friend urged us to do, this very wide consensus of constructive moderation which exists throughout the Middle East, in Israel and in every Arab country. It will not be easy. We are operating these days, I sometimes think, in an era where there is a premium on demented prejudices, national and religious. The task of drawing up blueprints of agreement are immeasurably easier than the task of persuading prejudiced minds to do more than accept formally such unexceptional proposals. There is a revolution of mind necessary before there can be an evolution of reason.

The Motion before us urges Her Majesty's Government to use all their influence to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in conjunction with other members of the European Community. I repeat that we and the other members of the Community have recognised that the Middle East is an area in which the Nine can achieve a great deal by acting together. Our own Government's views—this is broadly shared among the Nine—are that while the American initiative shows the promise it does, it would be inadvisable to start a new initiative, even of the Nine, which might cut across that initiative.

I close without having had time to refer to a number of important points in a number of excellent speeches; but I will refer to a group of speeches with which the debate drew to a close. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is a frankly declared sympathiser of the Arab cause. Nevertheless, as we were reminded, he took pains to pay tribute to the tremendous contribution of the Jewish race and the great potential, technically and artistically, which this famous people can make, not only in the Middle East but indeed, as always, to humanity as a whole. This is the kind of speech, the kind of balance, where legitimate partnership is declared, but where there is the successful effort to pay due tribute to the other side. The speech made by my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge also struck a note of the non-partisan desire to address oneself to the realities; and the supreme reality of which she reminded us is of course that this is not the interest simply of one country, one nationality or one religion—it is a human interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in a most well-informed speech, of which I have taken very careful note, also drew our attention to the realities which are the need to do everything we can to help the hundreds of thousands of refugees, not only in the Middle East as we know it, but in Cyprus and other countries. I have taken note of what he asked me regarding Cyprus and Kurdistan, and the figures he gave us about UNRWA. If I am to accord the courtesy of allowing the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, to add a few words to what he said, I must sit down now, apologising if in your Lordships view I have left out any important points that I should have attended to. I may have a further opportunity in this House to address myself to these points.

Lord CHELWOOD

My Lords, because of the time factor I waive my right to reply to todays debate—a promise is a promise—much as I should have liked the opportunity to reply. I therefore content myself with thanking noble Lords very much indeed for their contributions, especially the Minister, for the typical care with which he addressed the House in winding up the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.