§ 11.7 a.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to recognise the transference of the Israeli Prime Minister's office to East Jerusalem.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, British Governments have taken the view since the 1967 conflict that Israel's rights in East Jerusalem do not extend beyond those of an occupying power, pending an agreed solution on the 1178 city's future. It follows that we do not accept that Israel has the right to establish government offices there.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the future of Israel? I went there years ago and described it as the most socio-democratic country that I have visited. We are deeply concerned about its isolation now in the world from the United Nations and from the European Community. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is true that America has declined to recognise this new office in East Jerusalem, and are not European countries likely to do the same?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, of course I am aware of the concern of all right-minded people about the state of the Holy Land. Those of us who are friendly to Israel—and I hope that they are the enormous majority—are concerned about her diplomatic position. But, as regards the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I think that I am right in saying that the new office, to which he has referred, is not yet there. I understand that the United States has adopted a similar stance to ours about existing events, and so have our European partners, in the main, as evinced by the Venice Conference. I think that the question of the new office is still hypothetical.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that all these issues, including that of the future of Jerusalem, cannot finally be settled except by mutual agreement at a properly convened and representative conference to deal with the future of the area? Secondly, does he agree that attendance at such a conference must obviously depend, as the noble and learned Lord himself said here yesterday, on the total abrogation by any individual or organisation of the intention to destroy another member of that projected conference?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think that as usual I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lord.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, when this matter is being considered will the Government be good enough to approach it with the knowledge, first, that as regards the re-establishment of the Jewish state, Jerusalem was the capital, and for 1,000 years had observed the highest regard and protection for other religions, and that Jerusalem was the town which was saved by Jewish martyrdom for the benefit of monotheism? Will they also take into account what happened when Jerusalem was in other hands? Did we or did anyone protest, other than the Jewish bodies themselves, when Jews were not allowed into Jerusalem for 19 years after another Government had taken it over without anyone's consent? In those circumstances, has Europe really a right to interfere in a matter which is to be considered between the authorities who have dealt with Camp David, which has been so very sadly underestimated by us all?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner—whose steadfastness in stating his point of view is, I think, the subject of admiration of all of us—has raised a number of rather different matters. I rejoiced at Camp David, and I would be sorry to see any action taken on either side which jeopardised what was achieved there. I think that matters have not gone as well in recent weeks as some of us had hoped. It is, of course, true that the Jewish population of Israel suffered indignities of an intolerable kind during the 19 years to which the noble Lord referred. I think that during that period of time the British Government adopted a stance in relation to the then occupying power similar to that which we now adopt with regard to the present occupying power. I do not think that anyone is more conscious than I of the Jewish feelings towards Jerusalem. The noble Lord has movingly expressed them on a number of occasions.
I remember that last week the noble Lord referred us to Psalm 122. I remember the words with which that psalm ends, and I happen to have quoted them on Mount Skopos when I had the honour of delivering a lecture on English legal subjects at the Hebrew University. The psalmist said:
O pray for the peace of Jerusalem:they shall prosper that love thee.1180Peace be within thy walls; and plenteousness within thy palaces.For my brethren and companions' sakes … I will seek to do thee good".I do not think that I can better that by way of a supplementary answer.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the manner in which he approaches this. I shall not enter into a biblical dissertation at present. However, does the House realise what all this means to Jewish people? Does it realise that when the soldiers entered Jerusalem the first thing they did was to go to the walls of the temple to pray? During the whole period in which Jerusalem was the capital of the Israeli state, every religion has been most scrupulously cared for. In those circumstances, is anyone surprised that an attack of this sort is justifiable when they consider Jerusalem to be the capital?
Lord JANNERMy Lords, so far as I am concerned, I am bound to say—it may be bad timing—that I think it is right.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord is going a little beyond our bounds of order. Could he come to the climax of his question?
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, may I just—
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I can only deal with one supplementary question at a time. I think that the whole House realises the depth of feeling that prompts the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in these matters and is probably prepared to make allowances for that feeling in applying its rules of order. The noble Lord expressed the very deep feelings which Jews have towards Jerusalem. He was quite right in his earlier supplementary question to refer to the fact that the monotheistic religions of the world—which include Islam and, if I may say so in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, my own religion too—are due, of course, to the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures and to the frequent martyrdoms of the Jewish people.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I do not wish to prolong this matter, but can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is not the case that the main difficulty behind this problem is the fear that the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel? Has he seen the interview with the leader of the PLO this morning denying that that is his attitude and saying that he is quite prepared to enter into negotiations?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I did read the press reports this morning, but of course one does not entirely found one's political views on the press reports of a single morning. I think that I had better be a little careful about that, but if it be true, I am very glad indeed that a number of Arabs—and I know that there are a number of such Arabs—recognise the right of Israel to exist; because the destruction of a member of the United Nations would deal a blow to world peace which would not stop at the Holy Land; it would undermine the whole fabric of international law.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, I should like briefly to ask a question. Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that there are many Jews—and I am one of them—who do not approve of the settlements that have been set up by the Prime Minister, Mr. Begin? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that, despite what my noble friend Lord Brockway said about the policy of the PLO, in their covenant they have the destruction of Israel stated clearly? Unless they take that out of their covenant there will be no peace in the Middle East.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think that the role of Britain, as one now happily of the Nine, is to attempt to instil into the warring hearts of people who are deeply stirred by this question a love of peace. By my answers I have tried to do that. I do not want to go much further than that. Of course what Mr. Begin does is no doubt a matter of dispute inside Israel and it is also a matter of dispute outside Israel, but I would far rather not respond to that part of the supplementary in the way that Mr. Begin responded to my noble friend Lord Carrington the other day.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, may I ask whether any Government have as yet announced their intention to recognise the transfer of the seat of government of Israel to Jerusalem, and whether there is any prospect that any Government will?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think I would have to have notice of that, but I think none of the Governments with whom we are in closest touch has done so, but I would rather leave that to a Question on notice.
§ Lord BOOTHBYMy Lords, may I ask one very brief question to the noble and learned Lord, which is simply whether Her Majesty's Government realise, as I think they do, that the Jews alone, the Israelis, can give freedom to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians alone can give security to the state of Israel; and that unless and until they both do just this, there can be no hope for peace in the Middle East?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I thought that that was the object of the Camp David agreements in which our friends and allies in the United States played such a notable part. I hope that it will be recognised that both peace and security are interdependent.