Middle East Peace Negotiations (Hansard, 13 April 1983)

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

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the European Council statement of the 22nd of March emphasised the urgent need to achieve the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon and the resumption of negotiations aimed at a comprehensive settlement. We and our partners in the Ten are continuing to do all we can on the principles of the Venice declaration to encourage movement towards compromise and negotiated solutions.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for that reply. I should also like to congratulate our Government on their very strong endeavours because it seems to me that our Government more than anyone else acknowledge the fact that the situation in the Middle East could be a flash point for a world war. Is the noble Lord aware—and would he not agree—that the fundamentals that we must first achieve if we are not to allow the bawlings of the past to drown the whispers of a civilised solution for the future, are that the State of Israel must be recognized 186 to be allowed to exist in peace and security within its legal boundaries, and that Arab lands that have been taken from them have to be returned? Is he further aware that it is also equally important that a State of Palestine has to be created, and that we should all hope and pray therefore that they will be good neighbours living together in earnest reciprocation of goodwill?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I have said before from the Dispatch Box that what we must see in this particular situation in the Middle East is evenhandedness. I reaffirm that today. While not going quite so far as the noble Lord in recognising that this is a potential world war situation, I agree that we have commercial, historical, cultural and, of course, strategic links with that part of the world, which is why we find it so important. I am grateful for the noble Lord's acknowledgement of the efforts that the Government have made, especially culminating in the enormous strides that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made in the past few weeks.

Lord Chelwood
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the very widespread view that it is time that Mr. Arafat realised that the pretence of unity in the PLO and in the Palestine National Council does not conceal from anyone that they simply cannot agree about what to do next? It may even in the end destroy any real prospect of Palestinian self-determination. Does not the taking of decisions by consensus give a veto to an extreme and unrepresentative minority?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am afraid that it is not for me to comment on whether the Council of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation is a minority. However, what I can say in regard to the latest breakdown is that King Hussein and Yassir Arafat agreed on a joint document. Yassir Arafat then went to consult with the PLO executive committee for four days, who would only agree what Mr. Arafat and the King had previously agreed to, with amendments which King Hussein regarded as unacceptable. Yes, I would take that as supporting my noble friend's view.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that before Easter I proffered the view at Question Time that the Palestinians would have had their state long ago, had it not been for the PLO? Does he not now share the view of President Reagan that that is the case? Will the Government now please distinguish between the Palestinian people who have a perfectly legitimate desire for some kind of autonomy or state of their own, and the PLO whose major purpose is the destruction of Israel? The failure to distinguish between the two has prevented this Government from playing any major part in the search for peace in the Middle East.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I still believe in President Reagan's initiative in which he spelt out the final arrangements for self-determination for the Palestinians in association with Jordan. I am also coming slowly to the view which the noble Lord holds, that there is a great dichotomy between the PLO and the rest of the Palestinian people.

§ Lord Wells-Pestell
My Lords, are the Government aware that the extreme wing of the PLO is totally opposed, and has said so quite recently, to an independent state of Israel or the recognition of it, which culminated by way of proof in a very serious and distasteful murder within the past two weeks?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am well aware of the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. I would not actually go so far as to say why and by whom the murder was committed; but, as I sought to make clear in my original supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, we cannot take any steps forward without the equal recognition of both sides to live in amity.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, is not the obstacle to peace at present in the Middle East the fact that the PLO and the Palestinians do not acknowledge the existence or the right to exist of Israel? That is the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East at this time; all the other matters can be dealt with.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
No, my Lords, with respect, it is one of the two main obstacles.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, have the Government considered the desirability of re-calling a world conference on this subject in order to bring pressure to maintain the security of Israeli borders and to establish an independent Palestine state? Would not such a world conference be now very desirable in view of the situation in Lebanon and the rejection of President Reagan's proposals?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, while there is neither agreement between the outside states, nor agreement within the Arab states, I do not think that a worldwide conference would be useful in the current circumstances.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, having listened to some of the questions, been cognisant of some of the ill-formed criticism of the State of Israel and the situation in the Middle East, may I ask this question. Will the noble Lord not agree that in the event of trouble with the Soviet Union—and he will no doubt take note that the Soviet Union is using Syria at present, as it has done for some time, as regards the provision of arms and in other directions—the United Kingdom cannot depend on any of the Arab countries or any of those who describe themselves as Arab Palestinians?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, when I referred in my last supplementary answer to the disunity between the outside states and the inside states I, of course, did not refer to the equal apparent disunity, the one with the other. Yes, I very much take the noble Lord's point.

§ Lord Caccia
My Lords, in view of the reported statement of Mr. George Schultz, do the Government not think that there is something to be said for the suggestion which he made that at the moment the best thing to do is to allow the Arabs some time to reflect on what has taken place recently between the PLO and the King of Jordan?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Yes, my Lords, I think that that would certainly be the next step and I look forward to the Arab states consulting together and producing their own proposals.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, will the Minister not accept that it is a fact that President Reagan's initiative was only partially accepted by the Arab leaders, but that it was indeed totally rejected by Mr. Begin although not by any means by all the people in Israel, many of whom want to see a just peace as much as anyone in this world? Will he further agree that perhaps the only way in which to do that is to follow the example given by many brave Israelis of having a world conference, if you like, to help them whereby the State of Israel can be guaranteed its future just as much as the return of Arab lands will be guaranteed and the creation of a Palestinian State? This is the only formula that will stop the death and destruction that periodically erupts in the Middle East.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am not sure that I can go anything like so far as the noble Lord did in his second and third supplementaries. But I will point out that partial rejection is no reason for not pursuing a policy as all Governments of all complexions have discovered over the decades.