The Lebanon

HL Deb 21 June 1982 vol 431 cc879-902

8.37 p.m.

Lord Mayhew rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to help restore the integrity of the Lebanon after Israel's aggression.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise this subject tonight in order to urge the Government to take all possible steps to restore the integrity of the Lebanon after the Israeli invasion. I do not propose to dwell on the human suffering caused by Israel's invasion, but we should perhaps remind ourselves briefly of the facts. According to the International Red Cross and the Lebanese police, up to 14,000 Lebanese and Palestinians have been killed and up to 20,000 wounded. Incidents of a particularly horrifying kind were caused by the dropping of 2,000 lb. bombs and the American cluster bombs in crowded civilian areas. According to the Red Cross, more than 2,200 people were killed in Sidon alone. Noble Lords may have seen the despatch from The Times correspondent, Mr. Robert Fisk, when he described the scene in an elementary school which had been hit. He wrote: The bodies lay on top of each other to a depth of perhaps six feet, their arms and legs wrapped round each other, well over 100 of them, congealed in death into a strangely unnatural mass ".

Besides those killed and wounded, United Nations officials estimate that 600,000 people have been made homeless. Although this is hard to believe, it cannot be contested. The sufferings of the wounded and the refugees have been made worse because the Israelis have been deliberately obstructing the sending in of medical and relief supplies. Noble Lords may have seen the letter of protest in The Times last week from Christian Aid, Oxfam and other organisations. Finally, the press were forbidden access to the worst hit towns on the grounds, according to Israeli officials themselves, that the publication of the details would damage Israel's international image. But no amount of covering up by the Israelis can conceal from world opinion their inexcusably brutal and savage conduct.

However, we must ask ourselves why this happened and what should now be done. The Israelis protest that the PLO was shelling and rocketing Northern Galilee, but, as the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr. Hurd, explained in another place on 8th June: In fact, there were no artillery or rocket attacks by the PLO across the Israel-Lebanon border between the implementation of the cease-fire in July 1981 and 8th May when the Palestinians responded to Israeli air attacks on their positions in the Lebanon.

But the Israelis also protest that the PLO was responsible for the outrageous attack on their ambassador in London. However, their military preparations had evidently been made long before this and they were plainly waiting for a pretext to invade. Moreover, it is now clear that the attack was not made by the PLO, but by the PLO's enemies, by a group of fanatics which for years has been murdering both Israelis and Palestinians who favoured a peaceful settlement. The former PLO representative in London, Mr. Said Hammami, a very brave and distinguished man, told me of the threat to him from this group shortly before they murdered him. Mr. Arafat and the present PLO representative in London are also on this group's hit list. Thus, so far from avenging Mr. Argov, by invading the Lebanon and attacking the PLO the Israelis have, in fact, made common cause with Mr. Argov's assailants.

The Israelis are on stronger ground when they protest that members of the PLO have carried out other acts of violence against Israelis, particularly in Israel itself. But why should Israeli acts of savagery against Palestinians be expected to end this type of Palestinian savagery against Israelis? All experience shows that it is more likely to increase it. As is shown by their history before the coming of Zionism, the Palestinians are not by nature a cruel or violent people—very much the contrary. The truth is that terrorist gangs would emerge in any nation subjected to the degree of injustice, humiliation, deprivation and oppression suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis.

We British, to our shame, have thrown up a small number of young men ready to commit violence against immigrants. But suppose that we had experienced immigration on the same comparative scale and of the same type as the Palestinians. Suppose we had had imposed on us 30 million or 40 million immigrants, and that these immigrants, instead of becoming British citizens, had seized large parts of Britain, including London, and set up their own state, driving out millions of British people and appropriating without compensation their houses, shops, farms and personal property. I ask: would all British people have taken this peacefully? Would none of our young men have taken up arms and would not some of these have committed outrageous acts of revenge?

Nevertheless, as we have not had the Palestinian experience, we have the right to express our moral indignation against the armed action and sometimes the terrorist acts of members of the PLO. I have done so myself, publicly, on more than one occasion. But the Israelis, and Begin especially, have no such rights. As the Guardian commented last week: Both Jews and non-Jews have an increasingly difficult job in arguing for Israel's protection against Arab terrorists when the state of Israel itself sets an example of terrorism on a nationwide scale.

Even if we leave aside this institutionalised, mass terrorism and consider only terrorism in the narrower, classical sense, the Israelis are still in no position to protest. On a smaller scale, more efficiently and with greater secrecy, the Israeli security service, Mossad, also commits individual acts of assassination. Atone time of course, Begin himself was a self-avowed terrorist. Indeed, if we count up his victims in the King David Hotel at Deir Yassin and elsewhere, we are led to a remarkable conclusion. Simple arithmetic shows that judged solely by the number of his victims when he was a self-confessed terrorist, the Israeli Prime Minister has a worse record of terrorism than all the members of the PLO combined. It is a symptom of the sickness of the state of Israel that it should elect as Prime Minister such a brutal man with such an evil record.

Nothing but evil has resulted in the past for the Israelis and the Palestinians from terrorism and counterterrorism, and nothing but evil will come from it in future. The most obvious result will be the destruction of Israel's own long-term security. Every act of expansion and aggression, every brilliant military suc- cess simply makes this more certain, as does every innocent person killed, injured or made homeless in Lebanon, as does every unarmed demonstrator or bystander shot by Israeli soldiers or settlers on the West Bank. Israel's few remaining friends desert her—Europeans, Americans, many Jewish people among them, and also people particularly important to Israel's future security, Mr. Mubarak and the Egyptians. At the same time the number of Israel's enemies and their bitterness increases, and they now include a growing army of fanatical Moslem fundamentalists, not only in the Arab world but beyond the Arab world.

" Well", say the Israelis, "we can always rely on the United States". So far this has been proved abundantly true. On Palestine, the United States has so far acted simply as Israel's satellite. The Americans go through the motions of protest, but they then protect the Israelis at the United Nations with their veto, and continue their massive unconditional financial and military aid, which alone makes Israel's crimes possible. But even in the United States there are ominous signs for Israel's future security. The gap is steadily widening between Israel's demands on the American Administration and American national interests. American interests require friends in the Arab world, especially in the Gulf. They require unity in the Atlantic Alliance. They require influence in the third world and at the United Nations, and the isolation of the Soviet Union. In all these respects American national interests are being increasingly undermined by their undiscriminating and unconditional support for Israel.

Those who, like myself, have discussed the Palestinian problem over the years with members of Congress, arc aware of an increasing readiness on their part to face the pressures of the Israeli lobby in Washington. Doubts are growing, even inside the American Jewish community, and even inside Israel herself. Jewish people of courage and integrity are speaking out freely. Fewer are emigrating to Israel; more are leaving. Up to half a million Israeli citizens are now living abroad permanently. Already less than 3 per cent. of the population of the Middle East are Israelis, and this proportion is growing smaller. The Arabs are beginning to catch up in education, technology, wealth and military skills. For her own sake, Israel must come to terms with facts. If she continues with her expansionist policies, relying solely on her military superiority and her influence in Washington, she is laying up for herself a terrible reckoning in the future.

There is an alternative. In relation to Palestine, Camp David has been a failure; but in relation to Egypt it was a success. It produced Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, mutual recognition between Egypt and Israel, demilitarisation, and a peace-keeping force including Europeans and Americans. This must now be the pattern for Lebanon and for Palestine. Such a solution would conform with the United Nations Charter, with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, with the unanimous declaration of the European Community at Venice, and with the views of the moderate Arab States expressed in the Fahd Plan, for which Mr. Arafat expressed his support.

The implications of this solution for Lebanon are that all foreign military forces would be withdrawn and an effective Lebanese Government restored which would seek mutual recognition with Israel. The implication for Palestine is that there would be two Palestinian states, with mutual recognition, with extensive demilitarisation, and a peace-keeping force including Americans and Europeans. In short, it would be a policy of Lebanon for the Lebanese, Israel for the Israelis and a Palestinian state for the Palestinian Arabs.

This is the way to end terrorism and counter-terrorism. Providing a peaceful outlet to the passionate national feelings of the Palestine people offers Israel her only hope of long-term security. We must not let this way forward be blocked by Israel and by Israel's influence in Washington. Not only the rights of the Palestinians, not only the security of Israel herself are at stake, but also major British and Western interests. There is a wide consensus of world opinion in favour of the need for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon and the West Bank, and Israel must now be required to conform with it, if necessary by the use of economic sanctions. Since neither of the big powers is in a position to take the lead, Europe must do so. Let the European Community now call together all the Governments concerned in order to extend the precedent of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to Lebanon and Palestine. Let Her Majesty's Government take this initiative now not only for the sake of the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples but in the long-term interst of Israel herself.

53 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, as recently as 26th May the House debated the Middle East on a Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. All of us who spoke then were concerned about the rising tension in the area, and we paid a good deal of attention to the Geneva Conference, to the Camp David accords, and the Venice Declaration. In a little over three weeks since then the scene has changed completely and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for enabling us to consider the implications of that change.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has given us some statistics. It is not possible today to make a proper appraisal of the full implications of the situation, but one thing is quite clear and that is that if it has been a great military success in terms of the destruction of opposing forces and equipment and in its advance as far as Beirut, it has also been a comprehensive onslaught. I should say now before I proceed further that the sympathy of everyone in the House must go out to the people of the Lebanon, both Moslem and Christian, for the suffering they have endured and are enduring. In the Lebanon, as the House knows, history has produced a unique country and people, and from the time it gained its independence in 1943 the Lebanon, by ingenious constitutional means, preserved a balance between its various religious and ethnic groupings, and achieved stability and prosperity.

I recall a parliamentary visit I paid there with other Members of both Houses after the Six Day War, and of the promise which this co-operation between the differing elements held out for the Lebanon and for the Middle East as a whole. It proved to be a false dawn and the Lebanon, mainly because of its geography, has become the bloody cockpit in a war not of its own seeking. It was in the 1970s that Lebanese progress and peace disintegrated when the PLO made the refugee camps around Beirut into its operational headquarters, and posed the threat to Israel which has existed ever since. In reaction, youth movements and political parties became paramilitary organisations, the terrible civil war of 1974-75 followed and now, what was once a peaceful country is mangled in a ferocious conflict between Israel and the PLO. The world must ensure—and the United States should take the lead in this—that the Lebanese are given all aid to rebuild their country.

The Israelis and the Syrians should leave the Lebanon, and all Lebanese should accept the authority of President Sarkis' new coalition government which has been given a heavy task to perform. Furthermore, the Palestinians have no right to use the Lebanon as a base for attacking Israel; this was made clear in the 1969 Cairo agreement. I make no apology for devoting this time to the Lebanon. I have always sympathised strongly with Israeli aspirations and believe strongly that the Arab countries' failure to give Israel clear and unequivocal recognition is one of the two root causes of the continuing crisis in the Middle East. But I am not sure that the partial devastation of a neighbouring country is the best way to preserve your own country.

This leads me to ask whether Israel, in seeking to inflict a mortal blow on the PLO, is justified in partially destroying its neighbour with appalling loss of innocent civilians. I am bound to say that the answer must be no. Furthermore, was it necessary for Israel to launch such a huge operation—its scale and precision clearly involved careful long-term preparation—merely in order to protect the towns of Galilee from shelling? It is arguable that this could have been achieved by observing the cease-fire and stopping the air raids on Lebanese territory.

The war aims of Israel are not yet clarified, but I hope the flush of victory will not blind them to the possible long-term consequences of their action if they do not also seek to resolve the long-term problems underlying the conflict and also to be magnanimous about it. If the Israeli war aims, as I understand some of them to be, include a demilitarised zone 25 to 28 miles north of their border, this now appears to be a practical possibility. If they include a US peacekeeping force, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has referred, then I suppose that is negotiable. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that. If they include the total destruction of the PLO, that is a more speculative objective.

They may wound the Palestinians grievously—they have already decimated their military capacity—but the Israelis should know better than most nations that you cannot for ever obliterate a people who believe they have a just cause. I profoundly hope that they will not persist in attacks on Beirut. The occupation of an Arab capital city with its attendant humiliation will not help their cause in the longer-term.

There is evidence that these developments are causing increased concern in Israel itself. According to reports there is unease in the Israeli Cabinet, and the Labour Opposition is conducting an inquiry into the conduct of the war. I have seen today a statement from the Israeli Labour Party; it comes from the chairman of the International Department, Mr. Israel Gat. This is interesting enough, I believe, for me to read extracts from it.

The Israeli Labour Party says first: Israel must adhere scrupulously to the declared objectives of the ' peace for Galilee' operation.

1. 2. The occupation of Beirut and control over the Lebanese capital must be avoided.
2. 3. The bombing of cities and non-combatant populations must be avoided on both moral and political grounds.
3. 4. Israeli initiated clashes with Syrian troops must be avoided.
4. 5. An overall cease-fire based on reciprocity must he adhered to.
5. 6. There must be support for the establishment of an effective multinational force to ensure calm and stability in Lebanon. The participation of United States units is desirable.
6. 7. The presence of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon must be as short as possible.
7. 8. There should be support for the establishment of an independent Lebanese Government with international assistance which does not depend on the Israeli Defence Force.
8. 9. All foreign troops must be withdrawn from Lebanon, leaving Lebanon to the Lebanese.
9. 10. There should be negotiations with Jordan and participation of Palestinian representatives with the aim of coming closer to reaching peace and a political solution to problems which cannot be solved militarily."

That seems to be an admirable statement from the Israeli Labour Party. Israel, under its present Government, has resorted to extreme measures. Mr. Begin would argue that it has been done to protect his people in Galilee and to neutralise the PLO. One asks at this moment whether they have succeeded. The kibbutzim of Galilee are no longer being shelled, but it would be a bold man who would track the consequences of this operation with any degree of certainty and confidence.

For example, does it mean the end of Yassir Arafat and George Habash as leaders, respectively, of the moderate and more extreme wings of the PLO? Some are arguing that if they cease to count, some moderate leaders will emerge with whom it will be possible to make some modest progress towards autonomy on the West Bank. Who can say? The course of history in comparable situations has not led in that direction. The departure of Arafat may not necessarily make things easier; the greater the humiliation, the greater the residual bitterness and the greater the possibilities of hard-line successors.

I believe, therefore, it is necessary that Israel should now halt their advance and agree a final cease-fire. That is the objective of Mr. Habib on behalf of the United States Administration, and we must as a House wish him well in his efforts. The influence of the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, is crucial, and while the reports from Washington at present tend to be confusing, it is clear that they are all profoundly concerned to see the war brought to an end.

I am sure Her Majesty's Government and our European partners will wish to give their support to any initiatives which will make for a permanent settlement. United Nations Resolution 242 and the Camp David accords still remain the best foundations for negotiations. Israel can achieve security in the north by a substantial demilitarised zone, although the manner in which that can be guaranteed must be a subject for detailed talks. At Camp David, Israel in the person of Mr. Begin himself recognised, the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people ", and proposed to grant self-government for an interim period to the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza pending negotiations between herself and their representatives on the final status of those areas. Israel must now show a readiness to act on those undertakings.

I must pose a different question, and possibly the most important one of all, and it was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew: What is to happen to the Palestinians in the Lebanon? Where are they to go? Their resettlement on the West Bank would be the most generous response to that question and it would conform to Camp David and the United Nations resolution. The United States, and indeed the West generally, might contribute financially towards that solution. I also hope that President Reagan and President Brezhnev will discuss that possibility when they meet shortly; the Middle East should certainly be high on their agenda. It is very much in the interests of both great powers that the matter be settled now, with a hope of permanence; "stirring it up" will benefit neither the Soviet Union nor the United States.

The effect of the conflict on relations between Egypt and Israel are, as the noble Lord said, also very much in everyone's mind. That new relationship was one of the most hopeful and important developments of our time, and we all hope it will not be fatally impaired. Much will depend on President Mubarak's statemanship at this crucial time.

A small but important additional point: Can the Minister say whether there is any validity in the charge, made in yesterday's Sunday Times leader, that Israel is refusing to allow United Nations agencies to use the food and medicines they have rushed to the Lebanese border? The report said that stores which could not be landed were piling up in Cyprus. I do not suggest that such reports are true, and I have with me a copy of Resolution 510 which, I understand, was passed today by the Security Council, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it available to me. This new United Nations resolution, while underlining previous resolutions along the same lines, Calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict ", and to make all medical assistance available to those suffering, and I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that and indicate whether that assistance is getting through.

Finally, while we are aware of the fears of Israel, we must say that war on this scale will not solve her long-term problems. As I said in our last debate, Israel must compliment her undoubted military capacity with diplomatic skills. Furthermore, after launching this terrible war, which has caused so much suffering, she will, I am sure, also show generosity of spirit and a willingness to seek reasonable solutions, as otherwise she will lose many of the friends who have supported her over the last 30 years and whose strong desire is that she should enjoy permanent security and full recognition within acceptable boundaries.

9.6 p.m.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, I too warmly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on his initiative. It is a pity that when vital British interests are at stake, as they are in a good many different parts of the world, and certainly not least in the Middle East, Government time is not found occasionally for debates of this importance and they have to take place late at night on an Unstarred Question.

I do not think there can be one single shred of justification for Israel's attack on the Lebanon. It had been planned for many months, perhaps even for years. The PLO provided no military threat whatever to Israel and, as Lord Mayhew reminded us, they showed the utmost restraint throughout the cease-fire period, with not a shot fired, until an Israeli inside the Lebanon drove on a mine and was killed. He had no right to be in the Lebanon, and the immediate reaction was the first and very damaging and powerful raid on Beirut. The excuse—if that is the right word for this major conflagration—was the wicked attempt to assassinate Israel's ambassador in London, a man whom I knew and liked and respected, and as a result of that, this colossal invasion and occupation has taken place.

In that context, we should remind ourselves that it has for a long time been the claim of many leading Zionists that southern Lebanon should he part of Eretz Israel, or Greater Israel. It was the dream as long ago as 1896 of Herzl; at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference the Zionists put it forward as a positive claim; in 1948, Ben Gurion, then Prime Minister, wanted the overthrow of Moslem supremacy in Lebanon, which he regarded as "artificial" (that was his word) and he proposed that a Christian state should be set up with a southern frontier on the Litani River. Chief of staff Dyan, who died recently, often said that he thought that southern Lebanon should be incorporated in Eretz Israel, and proof of that is to be found in Moshe Sharett's diary, published in 1954. Have they, or have they not, dropped their claim completely?—I do not know.

What are we to think of the American role? To what extent has there been some connivance, even some collusion? We know that Israel's worst excesses are generally met with nothing more strong than a "tut-tut" from the Administration. I certainly agreed with George Ball, whom I saw on television last week, when he said that Israel was the United States' client state, and that enough is enough. He said it twice, and very outspokenly.

Of course the trouble is that successive Administrations have failed to be even-handed; perhaps this one more than any other. That reminds me that when I was talking to a very senior member of the present Administration I asked him how he would like to see American policy developing towards the Arab-Israel dispute. He said, "I would like to see it, to put it quite simply, even-handed". He looked round over his shoulder and said, "My goodness! I mustn't say that; that's anti-Israel". That says just about everything.

The casualties have already been mentioned. There have been appalling casualties; at least 10,000 dead and 14,000 wounded, which is almost certainly a considerable underestimate. Some "Peace for Galilee "! Most of those killed and wounded were civilians with no connection whatsoever with the PLO, and I should say that at least half were quite certainly women and children. This really is terrible. The sheer ferocity of the slaughter is horrific.

We heard in an earlier speech about the need for medical supplies and humanitarian relief generally for the very large numbers of refugees, of whom there are certainly several hundred thousand. No one seems to know, no one can know exactly, or even roughly, how many there are. I know that my noble friend is in very close touch with Beirut, and therefore may I ask him whether it is true that the United Nations' agencies, in particular UNWRA, have been prevented from supplying food and medicines and other disaster relief in the southern Lebanon, prevented from going there at all, and that the Red Cross, which has been operating in the south of Lebanon, has been prevented from entering Beirut? If those things are true, they are utterly inexcusable and unbelievably callous, and they should be condemned out of hand.

I should like to say a few words about the supply ship from Cyprus, which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, mentioned. Is it really true that it sailed twice and was turned hack twice, and that the second time the reason given was that there were mines off Beirut? The mines were laid by Israel, Israel knows where the mines are, and that could be no reason for turning back a supply ship with medical supplies. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us whether or not that point has been confirmed.

We read in The Times that doctors and nurses working in the Red Crescent hospital in Sidon have been arrested. Then there is the question of censorship, which is also profoundly worrying. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has already mentioned it and so I shall not touch on it further. There is a very clear attempt on the part of Israel to conceal from the world the full horror of what has happened.

In particular I want to ask a question about Israel's prisoners. Do we know, have we any idea, how many prisoners there are? I cannot exactly call them prisoners of war, since I think that technically perhaps they are not. Do we know how many they are? Do we know in what conditions they are being kept? Was it true, as I read in the Guardian, I think it was, or it might have been The Times, that many of them are blindfolded and tied up with barbed wire? Is that true?—I do not know. Where are they, and in what conditions are they being kept? What is being done about this situation from the Red Cross point of view?

Under this heading I should also like to say a few words about the 25-mile demilitarised zone, which apparently is Israel's condition for withdrawing, if it is going to withdraw. Why is the demilitarised zone to be only north of the Lebanese-Israel border? The attacks have taken place from south of the border, and I have no doubt that Palestinians, even if they are disarmed, will be remaining in South Lebanon. They do not want this to happen again. It seems to me that if there are to be demilitarised zones, they should be on both sides of the border, automatically; but nobody ever seems to mention it. I think that the same thing happend before (did it not?) when we had the tripartite guarantee and Israel refused to allow observers to be on its side of the border. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, nodding his head; I think that he was at the Foreign Office at the time. Obviously, that does not really provide Israel or her neighbours with the protection which they need. So if they are along a border, demilitarized zones should automatically be on both sides.

I shall be very grateful to my noble friend if when he replies he can comment on some of the points that I have raised. I know in fact that in terribly trying conditions our ambassador in Beirut has been doing splendid work, showing great courage, and doing his utmost to keep the Foreign Office informed.?

But how strange it is that world reaction to this really shocking affair has been so muted. I cannot help thinking that, had any other country behaved in this way, there would have been a colossal outcry, a colossal outcry. I suppose it is not really a very good idea drawing parallels between the bombing of Beirut as a result of the attack on the Israeli ambassador and what we might have done when our ambassador in Dublin was murdered, but I think it is a fairly good parallel to consider the consequences had we bombed Dublin as a result. After all, the Irish Government refuse to allow us to extradite leading members of the IRA who are accused of murder and are badly wanted. Of course, it is absolutely inconceivable that we should have thought of doing any such thing, but I do not think it is a bad parallel. ft certainly provides food for thought.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also asked about economic sanctions. I was in another place last week when the Prime Minister said that she thought they were "very unlikely". I am not much of a sanctions man, and generally speaking they are likely to be pretty ineffective, but they are at least a gesture of some kind. What is more, it is not really only sanctions, because there is an EEC trade agreement with Israel which gives Israel most-favoured-nation treatment for many of her exports to the Community. I am thinking of, for example, oranges and other tropical fruits which are in a condition of considerable over-supply already in the EEC. Are we bound to go on giving Israel that particular advantage? I saw in the newspapers recently that the financial protocol to provide Israel with a 40 million dollar loan has been temporarily held up—"postponed", I think is the word. If that is so, I should certainly be grateful for confirmation of it.

My Lords, Israel cannot destroy the spirit of a proud people, the Palestinian people, of whom there are more than 4 million, by attempting to smash the PLO in the Lebanon. It will not work. It will only stiffen their resolve to have what they are entitled to —self-determination. That demand, that desire, cannot be quenched by this behaviour; and I think the reaction on the West Bank, occupied by Israel with more than 100 Israeli settlements, is bound to be a very strong one when they recover from the shock.

The Lebanon, as I see it, is a reflection of the whole miserable and unhappy dispute in the Middle East: Moslem against Christian, Arab against Israeli, Sunni Muslim against Shia Muslim, Fundamentalist against Conservative—name it, it is all happening in poor little Lebanon. It is a kind of cockpit of the whole of the Middle East, and it is all stoked up, of course, by great power rivalries. These, I know, are glimpses of the obvious, but it indeed shows not only what a tragedy it is but how incredibly difficult it is going to be to solve it.

Lebanese unity, as I see it, is difficult enough to achieve again without all this, but it will be impossible while Israeli and Syrian armed forces and impotent United Nations forces are in the country. The Palestinians, I presume, will surely remain there, but on an entirely different basis. I certainly cannot imagine where else they are going to go. Up to 1975 the Lebanon managed remarkably well. Somehow, everybody managed to work together. They could do so again, I think, given the chance, difficult as it will be, but things will never be the same again.

Israel's invasion, I think, amounts to a terrible setback to the prospects of peace in the Middle East. Peace will never come about until the Arab-Israel dispute is settled by Israel withdrawing behind the pre-1967 cease-fire line (roughly speaking, anyhow) on the West Bank, in exchange for the security which they are entitled to, for which they quite naturally long, and which I want to see them have. This was the straightforward suggestion made by Senator Percy, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But, instead of that, which we really cannot anticipate in the foreseeable future, I fear, I think it is perfectly possible that Israel now plans to annex the whole of the West Bank and Gaza in an attempt to pre-empt peace talks. That really would be an even bigger setback. I just pray that that does not happen; that they can somehow be persuaded how wrong it would be.

The Palestinian people, my Lords, must again have their own home in what is left of their own land, including, of course, East Jerusalem. Israeli withdrawal from the whole of Lebanon is absolutely essential, as I see it, if there is to be a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. If it does not take place—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—I greatly fear that Israel's arrogant and aggressive behaviour will be recorded in history as having sown the seeds of her own destruction. I firmly believe that.

Finally, I think it is absolutely essential that the British Government, in co-operation with our partners in the European Community, should use every scrap of influence they have—and it is very great—to bring America to be more even-handed and to draw her into the search for a lasting peace on the broad lines of the Venice Declaration, which I think lays down the guidelines excellently. We must do this if we are to preserve our honour and protect our vital interests. So I hope and pray that, when my noble friend Lord Belstead comes to reply this evening, he will be able to tell us that, in spite of this very grave setback, energetic steps to find a lasting, peaceful settlement will continue.

9.20 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, like all of as here tonight, I offer my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for tabling this Unstarred Question which we would all agree, whether or not we are connected with the Middle East, is of immense importance. May I say that, like the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Chelwood, I have been in touch with the Lebanon for 40 years—slightly more in fact—and to see the destruction, loss of life and damage to buildings in that lovely land means that I can only address your Lordships under the strain of some emotion. But obviously one must not speak from an emotional or a personal standpoint in this House, and I shall want to make as factual and objective a speech as I can.

My Lords, the hour is late and I will not weary your Lordships with a dissertation on Lebanese history, but I think it is relevant to say that the Lebanon has a history which extends more than 2,500 years; in fact Herodotus reported that in 2574 the Phoenicians had established themselves in Tyre—a city so terribly destroyed recently. The Egyptians invaded in 1600 BC and were followed by the Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, Arabs and French. I think that I can assure your Lordships that in all these invasions there has never been such terrible destruction as that wrought by the Israelis in the last few days.

I should also like to direct your Lordships' attention particularly to the Christian communities in the Lebanon, since this subject we are discussing this evening is concerned with the reintegration and the re-establishment of this terribly shattered state. Here, some of your Lordships may be interested to know that the first Christian communities established themselves in the Lebanon way back in 640 AD. St. Maroun established a little church and a community in one of those lovely valleys which run down from the Cedars which some of your Lordships know. In considering the Christians in the Lebanon, we must remember that it is not only the Maronites. We hear so much of militant Maronites, aggresive Palestinians and bellicose Israelis: but we must bear in mind—and this is of crucial importance—that the greater part of the Lebanon population and particularly the Christians are very pacific. The Greek Orthodox in particular, who amount to something like one-tenth of the total population, have remained aloof from all the fighting and what a wonderful contribution many of them have made. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that Philip Habib is a Greek Orthodox of Lebanese origin. We must also remember that the Lebanon is a country which has been immortalised in some of the most lovely psalms in our Psalter. It was well known to Christ, the coast of Tyre and Sidon.

But, my Lords, we cannot dwell in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has indicated—and I agree fully with him—that the Israeli reaction has been far, far greater than justified. The Israelis say that they are following the principle of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. But it has not been one tooth for a tooth and one eye for an eye; it has been a whole mouthful of teeth for one tooth and three or four eyes for one eye. If I may continue the biblical language, it is as if the Israelis have seen their field full of tares and had gone in, rooted up the tares—and how much good wheat they have rooted up with it!

It is very important to bear in mind that this Israeli aggression against the Lebanon is not something new. I was stationed in Beirut in the early days of 1970–71, and I can remember many occasions on which Israeli planes came over, often on a Saturday afternoon when one was bathing on the coast. One saw the planes and the terrible destruction—aimed at the Palestinian camps and the villages. Yes, that was their aim. And how good the Israeli aim is and how terrible the destruction of the local population. I am reminded of that wonderful couplet of Milton's: Avenge, oh Lord, thy slaughter'd saints whose bones lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold. And how many Palestinian bones, how many Lebanese bones are scattered on those mountains, many of them saints, and how cold those mountains are! But if instead of "Alpine" we substitute the words "Palestinian" or "Lebanese", the couplet does not scan. Instead of that beautiful sonority of Milton's we get a harsh, discordant jangle. That surely is the tragedy of Lebanon today. The lovely elements of that country do not fit: there is something harsh and discordant about it.

What can we do about it? This, of course, is the essence of the Question we are considering tonight. I would not venture to offer a clearcut solution. I think most of you who have studied this problem will agree that a large Christian state must continue as a Maronite state based on Juni, including most of Djebal, Lebanon and some of the coast. That must remain. There will then perhaps be under optimum conditions one or possibly two Moslem states, and one would hope very much that the Palestinians would join forces with the Moslems. Then we have the Druze, They would perhaps form a little state on their own. All this might well be incorporated in some sort of federation. This is very inadequate thinking, but it probably provides some basis for consideration.

The most terrible aspect of this problem, I think, is the ghastly crescendo of fear and hatred which has developed. I have seen it develop over the years. Fear, indeed, it is. I have seen fear on the faces of the villagers in those villages of Southern Lebanon—fear which haunts every house and which stalks every street. Fear: and what about hatred? What indeed about hatred, my Lords?—hatred among the young people, a hatred which one finds in the training of these young guerrillas, the Ashbal or "wolf cubs" as they are called, the Palestinians young boys of 11 and 12 or even younger, trained and brought up to kill, dedicated to death and destruction. To some extent we get the same situation on the Israeli side with the young Sebras, who are also trained in the same way. So much hatred, my Lords, and so much violence; and how little compassion, how little consideration there has been on both sides.

That again is another terrible problem. In all my years of discussing this question with Arabs and Israelis, I have never met a single one who can really understand the sufferings of the other. And how much have the Palestinians suffered through the presence of Israel, with the gradual extension of the settlements, a great octopus—not the "dear Octopus" but a great octopus gradually engulfing their lovely land. And do not let us forget that the Palestinians lost land in the wars of 1948, 1956 and 1967.

What is so sad is that both Arabs and Jews have so much in common, as I am sure your Lordships are aware—with a common semitic origin, languages which are very close to each other and the two religions converging in many ways—and above all, the two peoples have suffered—the Jews have suffered in their Diaspora and the Palestinians have also suffered in the last 60 years. As the psalmist said: By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down…and wept, when we remembered Zion. But the Palestinians, they do not sit down and weep; they stand up and fight.

Is there any hope of reconciliation? Is there any hope of getting together? I would say that there are possibilities. May I for one brief minute draw your Lordships' attention to an area of which, probably, few of you are aware. I am speaking of the Golan Heights; that mountainous area on the frontier of Syria which was annexed by the Israelis in 1967. However much the Israelis may say that in their conquest they are trying to restore the frontiers of biblical Israel as given to them by God, no one would ever maintain that God gave them the Golan Heights. When they occupied the Golan Heights, there were something like 100,000 Syrian Druze living there. I am told that there are now about 13,000. The cities and villages were destroyed, the people were killed and many fled.

But—and this is the point I am coming to—over the last years, according to a very interesting report which we have had from a French correspondent, the two coummnities have managed to establish a modus vivendi. They managed to live together in reasonable harmony until a few months ago, when the Israelis insisted that every Druze inhabitant of the Golan Heights should take out an Israeli nationality paper. Whether or not that correspondent was exaggerating, I cannot say, but the report indicates that these Druze were forced to remain locked up in houses for days on end, and still their spirit did not break. We must be hopeful that some possibility of mutual understanding will eventually emerge. I would ask the Minister that, when Her Majesty's Government are considering this terrible problem, they bring to bear all the knowledge, all the understanding and all the compassion for such matters for which British Governments have for so long been famed.

9.32 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I should like very much to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for introducing this Unstarred Question. On about 10th April, Sheikh Yamani visited London, and he said in my hearing that he was worried that Israel would use the crisis of the Falkland Islands as a cover to attack Lebanon. I always thought that Sheikh Yamani was a wise man.

Israel is a special country. It is unique among States, in that it bases its right of existence on the claim that God gave the descendants of Abraham and Isaac the title deeds of their houses some 5,000 years ago in an office in Ur of the Chaldees. Israel is a special country, in that it has acted as a haven for Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Englishmen, Baghdadis, Yemenis, Moroccans and others who believed in this obscure property deal of 5,000 years ago. In a lighter vein, Israel once a year claims to be part of Europe and joins in the Eurovision Song Contest. Why not Syria, why not Jordan, why not Turkey? Israel is a special country.

I would also suggest to your Lordships that the state of Israel has benefited quite enormously—and I ask your Lordships to mark well that I say "the state of Israel"—from the horrified reaction of Western civilisation to the disgusting deeds of Adolf Hitler between 1933 and 1945. Western Christianity and Western civilisation has salved its conscience for antisemitism and anti-Jewish behaviour at the expense of the Arabs, who for 1,400 years had shown no signs at all of anti-semitism. As your Lordships are aware, in Granada and in Damascus Jews rose to the highest possible offices of state in the great Arab empires.

To establish this special state, this island of democratic tolerance in the Middle East, its present leaders, Begin and Sharon, and the Foreign Ministers have been involved in acts of tyranny, violence, murder and terrorism which, because they were carried out with such ruthless efficiency, have been successful up to a point. Let your Lordships' mind go back to the late 1940s. Let them remember those British sergeants hanging by their necks in an orange grove in Beer Sheba with their bodies booby trapped so that somebody else would be killed when they were cut down. Who did that? Begin. Who was responsible for the massacre at Deir Yassan when several hundred innocent Palestinian women and children were slaughtered so that others would flee from Israel? Friend Begin. Who was responsible for the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem? Friend Begin. Sharon set up his terrorist organisation, 101, and he happily slaughtered women and children over the border in Jordan. Did God give the title deeds of Palestine to Begin and Sharon for that sort of behaviour? Quoting President Reagan, Begin spoke on United States television about the need to stamp out terrorism. What hypocrisy.

President Reagan, in his speech to both Houses of Parliament, made much of the point that refugees flee the Communist world for the freedom of the West. According to George Ball, the United States gives Israel 7 million dollars a day, plus unlimited military assistance. Is the United States President not aware of those who have fled his country's over-bumptious client? Is he not aware of the dispersion going on daily of the Palestinians on the West Bank? Is he not aware that, when the West Bankers riot because their universities are closed, or because their farms are confiscated, or because their houses are blown up, the soldiery of what a Member of your Lordships' House in another debate called" poor little Israel "fire at children's legs with ball ammunition? No one appoints the noble Lord, Lord Scarman, to inquire into those riots. Nobody calls for the community policing of Hebron, Nazareth or Bethlehem. Israel's international behaviour leaves something to be desired. There has been atomic co-operation with South Africa. Israel and Syria have been in unholy alliance, selling arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. She and Libya—what friends!—are strongly suspected of selling arms to Argentina since 2nd April.

Israel claims special status. Let her earn it. Her present response to the legitimate nationalism of the Palestinians is to kill 14,000, to injure tens of thousands, to make hundreds of thousands homeless in the Lebanon. She has devastated those ancient Phoenician ports of Tyre and Sidon. She has refused Red Cross admission, except through Tel Aviv, where they generously waive the landing charges on the aeroplanes. That is not how to earn special satus.

Unless and until Israel and America realise that the root cause of Middle Eastern instability is the displacement of the Palestinians, and not Russian ambitions, the Middle East will be a tinder box. Thank goodness the Russians appear to have acted with great restraint during the recent crisis. Had they moved troops to protect Syria—which would, I suspect, have been America's reaction towards Israel—then the world would have been a truly dangerous place.

Israel must be restrained and America educated, not only for the peace of mind of Europe but for the sake of America's interests and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said, for Israel's ultimate survival. Nobody who attacks the behaviour of Begin, Sharon and their fellows is in any way suggesting that the Israelis should be driven into the sea. All one is suggesting is that not only should they live their own lives in peace and quiet but they have got to think of others at the same time. If America does not realise that, her standing in the Arab world will be ruined and friendly regimes will be destabilised, thus allowing the Russians and the fanatical Shi'a Fundamentalists access to the oil producing countries. Is that what they want?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, in these very few sentences, I shall not make a speech in the ordinary sense of the word—

Lord Sandys

My Lords, I believe it was arranged that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would speak, and this was agreed between both Front Benches.

9.40 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I in turn apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if I have interrupted any speech he was about to make. I do not think that in your Lordships' House I have ever appreciated more than tonight the fact that I was trained as a laywer. I say that only because so often I have found in the course of my career that if I listened only to counsel for the prosecution I would find myself coming to a wrong verdict. By the grace of God, in the justice of this country, which has set an example to and taught the world a lesson in the principles of justice, there is a principle of audi ateram partem; hear the other side. I have listened to a series of speeches which have contained one side of an argument without the other side being heard at all.

There is no doubt in your Lordships' mind that I speak as a Jew. Therefore, in defending the Jewish people and the Jewish tradition and principles, I do so with a great degree of pride. They happen to be the people who taught the noble Earl opposite, if he would have listened to them, the laws of peace, of understanding one's neighbour and of loving one's neighbour. Therefore, before one starts indicting a people and the state of Israel, instead of using mocking terms about title deeds and so on one might at least have been temperate in one's language.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, attacked Mr. Begin. I am not a supporter of Mr. Begin; I am no lover of Mr. Begin. But the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was attacking Governments of Israel from the very start, when Begin was not the Prime Minister. He knows and I know that we have had clashes before, at the Oxford Union, with criticism of Israel the whole time from the noble Lord. He is entitled to his views. This is a free country. I have never heard the noble Earl who has just spoken say a good word for Israel or any of its leaders—Begin or not a Begin.

May I just for a moment, without trying to justify slaughter, make some points. I do not know whether any one of your Lordships has ever been in the midst of a German symposium as I have been, trying to justify and understand the slaughter of millions of civilians in Dresden and Hamburg, in Coventry and Hiroshima. War breeds that sort of thing; that is why war is so horrible in all its aspects. There has to be a little understanding of history. In 1948 there was a decimated people, after the world had looked on. With 6 million dead, with over 1 million children among them, the world thought that it owed to those who were left some little bit of homeland, without going into title deeds. Countries were unwilling to accept them—including this country, which had a fine reputation for the refugees it took but could not take and did not want any more, and neither did the United States of America.

Talking of cruelty, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may remember the incident of the exodus, with many of them being sent back in ships. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, ought to remember, and sometimes I wonder whether he feels any guilt in that context.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is not attributing to the British Navy the extremely cruel and brutal behaviour of the Israeli Army today.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I do not quite follow the relevance of that remark, but no doubt the noble Lord will explain it to me at some other time.

My Lords, that was followed by a vote of the United Nations. The Arab countries were members of the United Nations. They refused to accept that verdict. It may have been a wrong verdict—the noble Earl thinks it is wrong—but it was a verdict of this country, of the United States and even of the Soviet Union. And so the little state started as the world's pupil in the fact that you have to wage war in order to live and defend yourselves, a principle admitted by the United Nations, and one of which we have just properly taken advantage in regard to our own battle in the Falkland Islands. So they went to war and the world pitied them. They fought on their own. It was right that they should. And the miracle was that they won.

In 1956 came the next war. A dictator called Nasser arose. A British Prime Minister used epithets about Nasser that I assure the noble Earl even bettered his epithets about Begin. And we went to war, this time with the help of Israel as one of our allies against this aggressive dictator.

The next war was in 1967. Then the whole free world was on the side of the little embattled nation, that said to itself, "It may be hopeless; we are attacked on all sides with all the forces imaginable accumulating against us". But in 1967 Israel fought back, and the world thought it an heroic victory. Lands were occupied. All I can say in regard to occupation of lands is that I do not defend the occupation of lands, but that happens to be an individual view of my own; it is not an individual view of statesmen after wars, nor has it been followed in history. Then after that one finds that there is peace with Egypt, with Israel making several sacrifices to do it. I will not go into that.

We now reach the present stage. Does any human being, be he Jew, Christian or Moslem, or be he indeed an agnostic, look with any delight or favour, or say a bravo to a country which manages to inflict the casualties that we have heard about, and properly heard about tonight? But did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he quoted from The Times and other papers, have the fairness or the sense of justice to quote those parts of the Sunday Times and indeed of the Economist which dealt with reports from correspondents on the spot, who said that the Lebanese people themselves had complained to those correspondents very bitterly that the PLO had insisted upon putting guns and ammunition and so on inside and by the side of schools and hospitals? The result was—so Israel reports; but hear the other party—that Israel deliberately suffered casualties or the risk of them in order to try to prevent such places from being attacked, but found in the end that for self-defence what they had to do was to fire at them. The noble Earl was not there; Lord Mayhew was not there. I was not there. Hear the other side, and do not just take the view of one of them.

The whole of this situation has arisen not because of any expansionist dream of Israel and not because of a power-glutted Government, much though I dislike many of the things that that Government are doing and have done; and I have said so, and said so in public and in this House too. Many of the things that Her Majesty's Government have done I have disliked, and I have said that too. And I shall say it, too, if I have to, as a matter of conscience if I ever think that Her Majesty's Government's Opposition does things of which I disapprove—and I will do it humbly.

However, I have been in Galilee. I have seen the children scamper into shelters as rockets came over. I have seen the lack of security in the North and the terror in the North—the terror by night, if the noble Viscount wants to go on quoting scriptures as well he is justified in doing, because he is a great Bible student and I admire him for it. There was a truce, or rather a cease-fire; and still there were intelligence reports of amassing weapons, ammunition, guns and people behind the cease-fire frontier on the other side. Nothing of this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in the course of his address. But again, The Times, the Economist and the Sunday Times have reported from their own correspondents that there are huge ammunition dumps all over the place—underneath refugee camps, in hospitals and everywhere; they reported them as things which they had seen. They have also found records—this was reported in the Sunday Times and other papers—and ample evidence that the PLO had been training and was helping world terrorist organisations which had nothing to do with Palestine at all. I have the sense of justice that says that I want to see those records before I believe it. I do not just accept newspaper reports. But cannot the noble Earl, the noble Lord and others who have spoken, do the same?

Finally—absolutely finally—do not let us mouth hatred and diatribes about the sickness of Israel to elect a Government of this kind. The noble Lord who sits in front of me and who delivered, if I may say so, a most statesmanlike speech, read out what the Opposition—which almost numbers the Government in Israel and has almost defeated them—stands for. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, did not have the fairness to talk about that. But thank heavens! that, in justice, my noble friend was able to acquaint the House with those aims and those objects as announced. Let us all pray. Let us pray for understanding and not hatred and prejudice. Let us try and get a peace with Lebanon for the Lebanese. Who has decimated Lebanon? Who occupied Lebanon? Was it Israel to start with? Was it a force that the Lebanese wanted? I am waiting to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. 1 am sure that there will be some balance in it. I am sure there will be some diplomacy in it. But please, do not indulge in a one-sided debate and think that then you can come to a conclusion and that you have benefited this House by your speeches.

9.54 p.m.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, first I must apologise for misunderstanding the arrangements for filling the gap and in these few sentences, which are not a speech, I should like to say that I am not violently pro- or anti-Israel of pro- or anti- the PLO, but I am unashamedly pro-Lebanon, a country I cannot say that I have known well for 40 years like the noble Viscount, but I did live there for a year at the end of the war and I have been there a number of times since. I have over those times visited camps within the city boundary of Beirut and I have appreciated that, as a result of those camps, the authorities in the city of Beirut were not masters of their own destiny. What was happening in those camps I do not know. I was advised by the British Embassy not to go, but my wife and I went all the same. I admit that the atmosphere therein was anything but pleasant.

This Question concerns the integrity of the Lebanon. Over the centuries the Lebanon has had a fragile existence. It has been important to the world because it has been a bridge between East and West, a bridge between the Christian and the Moslem faiths, and it has been important to the Jewish faith too—never more important than it is today. There are other issues today and violence in other parts of the world, but that should not allow us to blur our realisation that the integrity of the Lebanon is important to us all, and that if we forget that we shall all be losers.

9.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, our debate this evening has shown the deep impact made in this country by the tragedy which has overtaken Lebanon.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, to whom we are indebted for this short debate upon his Question, gave a brief description of the appalling loss of human life and the material damage to that beleaguered country. But if there is one point which unites all your Lordships —and there have, of course, been different speeches made in this short debate—it is the wish to see the country of Lebanon at peace.

I should say at the outset that the Government accept that Israel has a legitimate right to security. We utterly condemn the brutal attack on Mr. Argov, who is a highly respected member of the diplomatic community. The police have taken swift and decisive action, and we shall always act firmly in the face of any terrorist attacks.

We condemn unprovoked attacks on Israel. But self-defence is really not credible as the grounds for Israel's full scale and destructive invasion of the sovereign state of Lebanon; particularly an invasion which has had such disastrous consequences for the lives and property of the innocent civilian population.

We have all seen the graphic television pictures of the destruction wrought in Lebanon. It is easy to lose sight in these circumstances of the events of the past four years. But if we are to make progress towards a more stable future for the Lebanon—the objective to which I think all your Lordships join together in agreeing—we must look at the lessons of the past.

Four years ago the Israelis mounted their first invasion of Lebanon. The stated objective then, as now, was to achieve security for Northern Israel by establishing a cordon sanitaire on the Lebanese side of the border. The response of the international community was to establish UNIFIL, the United Nations force. Under the terms of Security Council Resolution 425, that force was to confirm Israeli withdrawal, restore peace and assist the Lebanese Government by ensuring the return of its authority to the area. But UNIFIL was never given the chance to fulfil its mandate on the ground. The withdrawing Israeli forces left their protege, Major Haddad, in control of a substantial enclave within which Israeli troops continued to move freely.

UNIFIL's task of preventing infiltration by armed groups through its lines was never easy. Some have criticised the force on the grounds that it lacked effective means to enforce its will. But this task was from the start made more difficult by the obstruction and harassment it suffered from Major Haddad's forces, including, on a number of occasions, the shelling of the UNIFIL headquarters. None the less, the United Nations force stuck to its task, even though the list of exchanges between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the period between 1978 and 1981 makes depressing reading.

The cease-fire arranged in July 1981 by Mr. Philip Habib has been the subject of much controversy, and has evidently been interpreted differently by the two sides. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that the PLO has had no right to use Lebanese territory as a military base. But I think it is right to bear in mind that, in the nine months or more between the establishment of the cease-fire and the Israeli air attack on 9th May, there was not a single fatality in Israel, or in Israeli-occupied territory, resulting from Palestinian action originating in Lebanon.

Two conclusions I would draw from that brief recital of the story. First, there was an opportunity to build a more effective peace on Israel's northern border by using United Nations forces. But Israel did not take that opportunity. Secondly, Israel tried in 1978 to impose peace by military force. She failed then. There must, I think, be serious doubts about whether she can succeed now. Only a negotiated peace can bring real security, and that peace will have to take account of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

The situation on the ground in Lebanon is still fluid. But there are certain fundamental principles which can guide us in contributing to the efforts needed from all sides to ensure that Lebanon emerges from its ordeal strengthened for the future. First, Security Council Resolution 509 calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces to the internationally recognised boundary. This surely must be a priority, even though we recognise that it would be neither possible nor desirable to return Lebanon to the status quo which existed before the Israeli invasion. As my noble friend Lord Chelwood said, nothing can be the same again, but we must all try to ensure that Israeli withdrawal leads to real independence and integrity for Lebanon.

A second important principle is that the Lebanese Government must be put in a position to exercise control over the whole country. I think that this message has come across loud and clear to the Government in this debate this evening. Lebanon has for too long served as a battleground for other people's wars. "Lebanon for the Lebanese" should be a slogan which reflects the needs for a Lebanese Government which represents all Lebanese, not simply the Lebanese whose views coincide with those of the Israeli Government.

In looking to the future, we must try to build on UNIFIL's experience over the last four years. Several ideas have been put forward for either an expanded United Nations force or for a separate multinational force. Mr. Habib is continuing his consultations in the region, and we must await the outcome of these before taking decisions on which alternative is likely to serve Lebanon's interests best. But one point is of overriding importance. The Israelis—I repeat it, but I make no apology for repeating it—really must withdraw to the internationally recognised frontiers. There should be no more enclaves under protection in the south beyond the power of the Lebanese Government.

The objectives of the Israeli action seem to have grown as the invasion has progressed. From the creation of a demilitarised zone north of their border, their goal appears to have become the elimination of the PLO as an element in the Middle East equation. I venture to say that I think this is unrealistic. The Palestinian people who, at around 4 million in total, outnumber Israelis, are not simply going to go away; and they have a right to self-determination enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The effect of the military defeat of the PLO may well be to discredit those in the leadership who stood for the path of diplomacy. This surely cannot be what the Israelis intended. The Lebanese crisis has proved once more that there will be no lasting peace in the Middle East without a solution which takes account of the aspirations of the Palestinians, otherwise they will remain a dispossessed people, forced from country to country in the Middle East and inevitably a source of tension and instability.

The worst aspect of any war is the human suffering which it leaves behind. The Government have acted swiftly to make available emergency aid worth almost a quarter of a million pounds to the various relief agencies who are working to the limit of their abilities in the most difficult conditions in the Lebanon, and we are also contributing to the European Community effort, which amounts in total at the moment to about two and a half million pounds. We continue to receive reports that the Israelis are not facilitating the smooth flow of emergency supplies to the Lebanon.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether relief aid was getting through. A week ago, on 14th June, the Belgian presidency of the European Community met with the Israeli ambassador and, on behalf of the Ten, invited the Government of Israel to give the following assurances: That Israel will apply the relevant Geneva Conventions, especially as regards prisoners; that Israel will admit international relief organisations to the territory which its forces have occupied and will facilitate their work; that Israel will similarly admit and give normal facilities to representatives of the media; and that Israel recognises both the sovereign state of Lebanon and the international frontier between Lebanon and Israel. Although, to be perfectly fair, I can say that I know that ambassadors of the Ten have been received by the Israeli Government in Tel Aviv, I am bound to say that no satisfactory reply has been received to those questions.

It is because no satisfactory replies have been received that I am unable to answer many of the detailed questions which my noble friend Lord Chelwood put to me. However, I would reply to two direct questions he asked. The first was whether the International Committee of the Red Cross was being able to operate in the Lebanon, and the answer to that is, so far as I know, yes. Secondly, on the other hand, what about the United Nations agencies? The answer to that is, no, and that includes UNWRA, despite Security Council Resolution 512, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, which specifically calls on all the parties not to hamper the humanitarian responsibilities of the United Nations and its agencies. My noble friend asked whether it was true that a supply ship from Cyprus had been turned back, because the ship was unable to get through. I am afraid I am unable to give the information which my noble friend seeks on that.

A word about the position of the British community in Lebanon. Their safety has been a primary concern for us throughout the fighting. We have made contingency plans for their evacuation. A British merchant ship has been chartered and is standing by in Cyprus ready to assist. At present, full-scale evacuation does not seem necessary. Meanwhile, the ambassador has advised British subjects to move from west to east Beirut, and we are watching developments very carefully. We hope that as a result of Mr. Habib's efforts, the present imperfect cease-fire will be transformed into a full cessation of hostilities.

The present tragic conflict is but the latest of the bloody encounters of the region. Lasting peace will be achieved only through a negotiated settlement. As a necessary first step, we have continued to urge the PLO to make clear that it is ready, as part of a settlement, to accept Israel's right to live in peace. But we must continue to work for Israeli recognition that the Palestinian people have their right to self-determination, the essential principles of the Venice Declaration.

In the Statement of 9th June, the Ten also said they are ready to assist in bringing the parties concerned to accept measures intended to decrease tension, re-establish confidence and facilitate a negotiated solution. On the success of that objective rests not only the territorial integrity of Lebanon but wider prospects for security and peace.