Israel: Withdrawal from Occupied Territories (Hansard, 11 May 1982)

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, we remain committed to Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war. We believe that the necessary guarantees should ideally be provided by the United Nations by a decision of the Security Council, or, if necessary, on the basis of other mutually agreed procedures, and we are ready to play our part in this.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Would he not agree that if we can make this first step a reality it will create a new climate in the long search for peace and security? The other attribute is that it will stop the maiming and killing and the suffering of humanity in that area.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lord that this would be the ideal way of proceeding; but we feel that the parties are too far apart to make a United Nations solution realistic at the present time. However, the Venice Declaration sets out the common ground that we believe the parties must agree upon before negotiations for a comprehensive settlement can be agreed.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not true that the Israelis took a great risk for peace when they surrendered the Sinai? Surely, this is a risk which has not been acknowledged or taken into account by anyone—including the Venice Declaration.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the 10 countries of the European Community have welcomed the peace between Israel and Egypt and the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. But, having said that, there is further work to be done. The 10 countries of the Community believe the way forward will be by way of the Venice Declaration.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before 1957 there were United Nations peace-keeping forces in position in the Sinai but that, when Colonel Nasser amassed his forces to invade Palestine, he asked the United Nations' forces to get out of his way and they duly scarpered? Is this likely to create much confidence in that sort of security force? Is he further aware that since then no anti-semitic motion in the United Nations has ever failed to obtain a 10-to-1 majority and that, very properly, most of them were vetoed later by the Americans and by ourselves?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am aware of the information which the noble Lord gave me at the beginning of his supplementary question. Our participation in the Sinai peace-keeping force demonstrates our 118 support for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai which has flowed from it. On the second point which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, put to me, I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that regretfully—because we believe that the United Nations provides the ideal method of going forwards—the parties are too far apart to make a United Nations solution realistic at the present time.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, in fact we would need another United Nations.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, that is a matter of opinion.

§ Lord Wells-Pestell
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would be advisable to leave the matter to the Camp David framework where there is an obligation on the part of the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Palestine Liberation Organisation to work out between themselves an ideal solution?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, as I have said, the 10 countries of the European Community have welcomed the peace between Israel and Egypt and the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai which of course has flowed from Camp David. However, the autonomy talks must result in a workable arrangement acceptable to the Palestinians if they are to be successful. We therefore believe that early Palestinian involvement is also essential.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make sure that, if there is such an international peace-keeping force, it is irremovable, strong and has some good, sharp teeth because we may be needing it elsewhere fairly soon?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I understand the concern which the noble Viscount is expressing. The United Nations presence in the Middle East—of course the peace-keeping force in Sinai is not a United Nations force—is an example of the United Nations doing its best. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that his second supplementary question was a matter of opinion because the Government disagree with him.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Camp David accord is based upon and in the context of United Nations Resolution 242? It had two parts: the first dealt with Sinai and the other with Gaza and the West Bank. The first part has been carried out with great faith and courage by the Israelis and the Egyptians. So far as the second part is concerned, will he agree that Israel published autonomy proposals for the West Bank in January of this year? Will he encourage Egypt and Israel to discuss those proposals as a basis for autonomy, which of course is an interim stage, rather than pursue the Venice proposals which Israel will not look at? What is the good of pursuing that when these proposals are on the table and that is the only hope of progress in that part of the world in the immediate future?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, but we are getting a little far from the United Nations. The Government agree with the 119 noble Lord that Camp David achieved a major step forward by bringing about peace between Egypt and Israel. It was a notable step. The question is now whether the Camp David process can lead to a comprehensive settlement. But I repeat that, although that is a very important consideration, the 10 countries of the Community support the principles of the Venice Declaration. We have always made it clear that at the same time we do not wish by doing that to cut across the work which is also going on as a result of Camp David.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Israelis are at present impeding the Camp David autonomy talks by requiring as a new departure that they should take place in Jerusalem, thus requiring the Egyptians and the Americans to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Will he also say whether this subject was discussed by the Community Foreign Ministers last weekend and whether the Community are proposing to take a new initiative?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the second question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asks me. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, I agree that there is trouble concerning the status of Jerusalem so far as the Camp David talks are concerned. But I think that your Lordships will forgive me if I say now that this is not a United Nations matter; and now we really are outside the scope of the Question.

§ Lord Caradon
My Lords, is it not the fact that the disagreement which clearly exists between the two sides in this matter is a serious one, as the Minister emphasises? Is it therefore not clear that it is more necessary than ever that there should be an independent initiative based on an understanding of the needs of both sides, and that that initiative should not be left aside but should be energetically pursued, not least by our own country?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, again I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. It is necessary for both Israel's right to exist in peace and the Palestinians' right to self-determination—which are the two principles of the Venice Declaration—to be recognised. I repeat again that Her Majesty's Government will be only too pleased to see, ideally, these matters pursued through the United Nations. The political will to reach a settlement through that channel is necessary. At the moment that will is lacking.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, in view of what happened in Lebanon this week, may I ask the Minister whether there is not a great danger that conflict will become intense? While one recognises that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is concentrating on the Falkland Islands crisis, is it not desirable in this situation that there should be a meeting of the Security Council demanding an end to military action, by either Israel or the PLO, and strengthening the United Nations peace-keeping force in Lebanon to prevent further outbreaks?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the problem regarding a Security Council initiative is the familiar one. The work of the Security Council is valuable. The actions of the Security Council are difficult to carry through into achievement. The Government have expressed our concern publicly and have taken diplomatic action with all the parties concerned to urge them to exercise maximum restraint as a result of the events in Lebanon in the past few days. We hope there will be no further resort to violent action.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said this afternoon will make a massive contribution to those who read his words on both sides of this grievious dispute? One day they will have to meet and they will have to talk because the alternative is that they will have to go on killing. I would have thought that any sane person in this Chamber would agree that this cannot be. Therefore, I suggest that Her Majesty's Government use their good offices to bring the issue to the United Nations along the following lines, with this order of priority: stop the killing; reduce the bitterness; and sit down to discuss a lasting security in peace for all in that area.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on the desirability of reaching a settlement in the Middle East. We believe with our fellow Common Market countries in the two Venice principles. We and our partners in the 10 will continue to work energetically to urge the acceptance of these principles as a first step towards negotiations on a comprehensive settlement.