Gaza and the West Bank

HL Deb 15 December 1988 vol 502 cc1104-16

8.52 p.m.

Lord Mayhew rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to prevent breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Gaza and the West Bank.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question asks the Government to do their utmost to prevent breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in occupied Palestine. It will be agreed on all sides that the best way of achieving that would be by a settlement to end the occupation altogether.

We are now faced with a more promising prospect in that regard than ever before. We have had the decisions of the Algiers Conference of the PLO; we have had the surge of world support for the Palestine cause; and yesterday the United States took a historic step in declaring the opening of a dialogue with the PLO. I think that we shall all agree that that could be a great turning point. We should agree that the Foreign Secretary was right today to say that it is now Israel's turn to make a positive response in the new circumstances.

However, there is no sign as yet of a change of attitude on the Israeli side. It may well be that that is partly due to a religious or ideological desire to maintain and colonise the occupied territories. It is more likely that it is a reflection of a genuine if, I think, illusory fear that Palestinian self-determination in the occupied territories will be a threat to the survival of the state of Isreal.

An objective observer might find that strange, might find indeed that it was the reverse of the truth and that the continuance of the occupation is the greatest danger to the state of Israel and that a settlement can be designed which makes it safe. Unfortunately I think it is true that for reasons of history, which every civilised person understands and respects, many Israelis are quite irrational about their security. They find it harder than others to trust their neighbours. They find it easier than others to believe that they are safer by domination than by compromise.

All those who want a settlement must do their utmost to persuade the Israelis that on the contrary the dangers to them exist in maintaining or trying to maintain the status quo. They must be persuaded that many safeguards can be arranged in a settlement that would offer them security: for example, underwriting the frontiers by the great powers; the presence of a United Nations peacekeeping force in the occupied territories and in Gaza; monitoring the frontiers, which could be demilitarised; the acceptance by the new state—as I hope it would—of a kind of Austrian status of neutrality; and arms limitations. All those and many more options are practicable. In the search for a settlement I believe that anyone who wants a settlement should try to persuade that truth on the Israelis. The Israelis must also be urged to speak with the Palestinians and to participate in an international conference.

Finally, on the Palestinian side, in order to help the moderates who have made such a great initiative I would hope that, for example, Mr. Arafat could be invited to meet the Foreign Ministers of the European Community. In Britain I would hope that the Foreign Secretary could invite appropriate PLO representatives to meet him.

Even on the most hopeful estimates, the Israeli occupation is likely to continue for many months if not for years. I should like to consider what can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people there. In large measure I shall be following representations made to the Government last week by seven of our major charities—the British Refugee Council, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Quaker Peace and Service, Save the Children Fund, the United Nations Association's International Service, and War on Want.

The Israeli Government have banned the media from the areas of operation of the Israeli army. The outrages which are committed on the West Bank are becoming almost a matter of routine. It is possible to become forgetful, even de-sensitised, to what is going on there and to the sufferings of the victims. We can read the bald statistics that up to 400 civilians have been shot dead, that others have been beaten to death, that many thousands more have been wounded by gunfire and many thousands detained without trial or deported.

The facts are so outrageous that it is hard to believe them. It is hard to imagine soldiers indiscriminately beating and shooting unarmed civilians, men and women, boys and girls—sometimes small boys and small girls. To all civilised people, not least those who have many friends among the Palestinians in the occupied territories, Israel's conduct is utterly intolerable. My purpose tonight is to urge the Government to redouble their efforts to put an end to it.

The Government's obligation here in my view derives from Britain being a signatory to the fourth Geneva convention. That convention was agreed in 1949 and has since been signed by 163 governments, all of them—except Israel—declaring that the convention applies to the Israeli occupation.

I should like to mention a few of the articles of the convention which are being persistently breached by the Israelis. For example, Article 33 reads in part: Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation and of terrorism are prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited". For intimidation and terror we have only to look at the casualty figures I have quoted. Collective punishments are regularly imposed in the form of destruction of crops, either by uprooting olive trees and citrus groves, or by banning whole villages from harvesting their crops, or in other ways. As regards crops, the Israeli commander of the central area declared last September: This was the policy during the plum harvest and during the grape harvest. It will also be in effect during the olive harvest". Other collective penalties include cutting off water and electricity, preventing food and fuel from reaching camps and villages and the demolition of houses.

Article 49 reads in part: Individual or mass forcible transfers as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or that of any other country … are prohibited". But of course deportations by the Israeli Government have continued. They have been unanimously condemned by the Security Council, including the United States. Scores of Palestinians born and bred in Palestine have been taken from their families and dumped in Lebanon. The Minister of Defence in Israel, Mr Rabin, said: We have used deportations in the past and we will use them again in the future".

The same Article 49 continues: The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". But of course in the settlements policy the Israeli Government breach that provision as well. I think it is interesting that an explanation of this section of the article was given and published by the International Red Cross long before the Israeli occupation began. That commentary said that this section of the article: is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain powers which transferred portions of their own populations to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonise those territories". I am afraid that one could hardly have a better definition than that of the Israeli settlements policy.

Articles 79 to 135 set out regulations for the treatment of internees. They insist that since detention is without a charge and without trial and should be strictly for security reasons only, it must not be treated as a punishment and detainees must not be removed from the occupied territories.

Possibly the most notorious Israel detention camp is Ansar 3 at Ketsiot which holds 2,500 Palestinian detainees. It is in the Negev desert, outside the occupied territories and therefore illegal. The physical conditions in the camp and the treatment of the detainees go far beyond punishment. In fact it is outrageous. Last August the International Red Cross declared: The International Committee for the Red Cross learned with consternation that two administrative detainees had been shot dead at the Queziot [Ketsiotj military detention centre on 16th August 1988 … Ever since the camp was opened in March 1988 the International Committee of the Red Cross has repeatedly stressed to the Israeli authorities that detention and internment of persons from the occupied territories on Israeli soil, particularly in the harsh climatic conditions prevailing in this case, was not compatible with the provisions of the 4th Geneva convention and could only lead to tension and unrest".

To sum up there is a summing up article, Article 147, which defines what it calls "grave" breaches of the convention: Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment … wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement, wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial … extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly". That describes the Israeli occupation, and though it was drafted 40 years ago it is easily recognisable today as a description of that occupation.

Those who drafted the convention after the war had in mind the horrors of the Nazi occupation. The crimes committed by the Nazi occupiers, especially against the Jewish people, are and remain unique. Nevertheless, it is ironical that this convention should now be directly relevant to crimes committed by occupiers who are themselves Jewish.

I turn now to the Government's duties in this matter. Article 1 of the convention states: The high contracting parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present convention in all circumstances". All signatories commit themselves to ensuring respect for the convention.

I therefore ask the Minister a number of questions on this matter of which I have given him notice. First, I ask him to state that the British defence regulations under which these injustices are committed by the Israelis are null and void, and that they have been invalidated and were invalidated by the British Government when it left the area at the end of the mandate. I ask him to inform the Israelis of this and argue, as he can, that these regulations can no longer be legitimately invoked. Secondly, what approaches has he made to the Israeli Government about these breaches of the convention and what were the results?

Thirdly, has he discussed collective action on this matter with fellow signatories of the convention in the European Community? For example, has he suggested or, if not, will he suggest that the European Community might form a commission to monitor breaches of the international convention? Maybe while condemning the breaches of this convention on the West Bank and in Gaza, it will be the view of the Government and of the Community that it would be inappropriate for the Community to continue to grant to Israel valuable financial and economic privileges in the Common Market which it does not grant to other countries with impeccable records on human rights. I should very much like to hear the Minister's comment on that.

To conclude, the Government's record on Palestine has been a little patchy recently. There have been good things; but, on the other hand, we notice that the Government declined to vote against refusing Mr. Arafat a visa to visit the United States. They refused to vote in favour of holding the United Nations Assembly in Geneva which has proved to be most successful and effective. Therefore, I hope that, despite these actions of the Government on abstentions, which are difficult to understand and which have been defended by the Government with a lot of weasel words but without any reference to principle, the Minister will be able to give some truly positive replies to the questions that I have asked him.

9.8 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He and I have spoken together in debates on Palestine on numerous occasions and we have nearly always taken the same line, which is to underline and reinforce the extent of the human rights violations, generally speaking the attacks on the Arabs by the Israelis. As your Lordships know, I had a debate yesterday on human rights violations worldwide. I deliberately refrained from mentioning Palestine.

I shall not go into details now because I have spoken about these violations on so many occasions before that it would only weary your Lordships if I did so again. However, I shall bring out one point that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned, and it is important to consider it in some detail, and that is the destruction of houses. The second main point I want to make, which so far as I remember he did not touch upon, is the educational problem and the closure of so many educational institutions.

Let us turn first to the demolition of houses. In the first week of November of this year at least 62 Palestinians were made homeless through extensive house demolition. According to the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre, the Israeli authorities are reported to have demolished 16 houses in various West Bank locations and two in the Gaza Strip. In the villages of Kufr Salem and Beit Fureek, where four and five buildings were targeted respectively, the army operation sparked off violent villagers' protests, but of course these protests were unavailing.

What were the reasons for these demolitions? The military authorities justified them by declaring that the houses concerned had been built without a permit. Of course it is almost impossible to get a permit. Many people are still homeless. Indeed apart from the demolitions of whole houses, it has been reported that parts of houses have been sealed off, thereby depriving the families of their full usage of these houses. That is the first point.

The second point is even more important, and so far as I know has not been mentioned at all in any of our previous debates in your Lordships' House, and that is the clamp-down on education. To the Palestinians education is of paramount important. Your Lordships will know how many Palestinians there are all over the Middle East and indeed in Europe too who have studied worldwide and have the most remarkable education qualifications, but the Israelis are deliberately stifling this expansion of education.

Indeed I would say that the Palestinians regard education as an insurance policy that would provide them with a bulwark against the appalling things that have been happening to them. But what is the situation now? I should be most grateful if the Minister could confirm these facts. According to the best information that I have received, the eight Palestinian universities, which together have more than 17,000 students, have been closed since the beginning of the year; 850 primary and secondary schools were closed for more than four months, reopened for a few weeks, and have been closed again since 21st July. On 19th September 10 adult training centres that give evening classes were closed.

This systematic persecution and will to prevent all education are on the general pretext that the universities and schools are centres of unrest. Whether or not that is so one does not know. We have of course heard of the activities of students throwing stones and so on, but I am quite certain that the activities of these students do not in any way justify the draconian measures taken against the education system. What is even worse is that parents who have been giving children lessons at home have been accused of subversive activity. That seems scarcely credible. I shall be interested to hear any comments that the Minister may have.

There seems no point in going into further detail at this later hour. In conclusion, I wish to say again that I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I very much welcome recent developments, particularly the so-called formation of a Palestinian state—how long it will survive, we do not know—and also Yasser Arafat's renunciation of terrorism reported in the press—again, we wonder how permanent that is. I very much hope that it will last.

I have always had sympathetic replies from the Minister to my interventions on Palestine and the occupied territories I therefore look forward to his reply to this short debate.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, we all wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for choosing today for the debate. It seems an amazing coincidence that we should discuss the subject on what is, as the noble Lord said, a historic day. We all hope and pray that it may be a turning point in what has been the sad and tragic background of the Middle East for many years.

The noble Lord gave some reasons why he felt that a settlement would be in Israel's interest. I completely agree with what he said. He asked that the Government should urge the Israelis to respond positively to Arafat's proposal and to take part in the negotiations. I agree with that also.

He then moved to the part of the debate that concerns the fourth Geneva convention and concentrated very much on the atrocities and breaches that have occurred. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, supported the condemnation of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, of Israeli action. The noble Viscount and the noble Lord asked the Minister whether he can confirm or give some account of what he knows about the breaches of the convention that have taken place in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

I am sure that the decision of the American Government to hold a dialogue with the PLO leader will be welcome news to all noble Lords. It must be regarded as a satisfactory outcome of a series of diplomatic developments that have gone on during the year, which the noble Lord, Lod Mayhew, listed. We join in giving a firm welcome to the statement, made in unequivocal terms by Yasser Arafat in Geneva, that the PLO renounces terrorism in all its forms, recognises Israel's right to exist and accepts without conditions UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for negotiation of a Middle East peace settlement. All that has happened there is of a most positive nature.

That is one side of the equation. We wonder what has been the response of the Israelis. So far we have heard some Israeli spokesmen who have reacted in a very negative way. Indeed, the ambassador in Washington said that he was bitterly disappointed. There has today been from Shimon Peres a statement which is of a more positive nature. He said, among other things: We believe that the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis, and the solution of the Palestinian problem, can be reached only diplomatically, politically and peacefully. We do rot seek any military solution to these problems". He said also: If there will be a period of quietness, I am sure that the Government of Israel, present and future, will agree to the holding of completely free elections in the West Bank, so Cut the Palestinians will be able to elect their own representatives". It must be remembered that there is no official response from the Israeli Government because at present there is no Israeli Government. The sooner the political parties in Israel come together and form a government, the sooner we shall hear officially of the way in which they intend to respond to the PLO leader's concession. If they doubt Yasser Arafat's sincerity, they should call his bluff. If he cannot fulfil his promises he will be exposed. That can come only from a government spokesman when a firm government are in place.

We are at an early stage in the process and a great deal must be decided. We should feed the present eurphoria but it may not be maintained. However, we must hope that Yasser Arafat will maintain the support of his people and that the talks with the Americans will be a significant step forward in the peace process. We also hope that the Israeli's will make a move in that direction.

The noble Lord and the noble Viscount have told the Minister that we expect an Israeli response to the initiative; otherwise we cannot believe that they want peace. If that is so it can be only because they wish to retain the territories which they now hold, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said. Today my right honourable friend Gerald Kaufman called on Israel to hold talks with the PLO after the US recognised the movement as a negotiating partner. I know that pressure will be brought to bear from every side for that to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke of the breaches of the fourth Geneva convention and I should like to comment briefly in support of what he said. One cannot doubt the validity of the proof of the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian communities. However, we look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

The noble Lord has pointed out the fact that the Israelis maintain that they are not in breach of the convention; that the territories are not occupied but are disputed; and that they are in charge of the territories until such time as their status is decided by a peace treaty between the belligerent parties. He has asked the Minister to urge the Israelis to accept the convention of which they are co-signatories, as are we.

There is a clear impasse because there is no Israeli recognition of the convention. That leads the noble Lord to wonder what can now be done for the suffering of the Palestinian families who have lived in distress and have seriously suffered over the past year. He mentioned the group of seven major British voluntary agencies which are working in the territories and which have drawn attention to many of the violations. The noble Lord pointed out the fact that for most of the year schools have been closed by military order. That is a serious matter considering the effect it may have on the present generation of children. The voluntary agencies have pointed out the harm that is being done to the work of charitable and development institutions. They have also pointed out the harm that is being done to the economy of the territories.

The British Refugee Council has been most active. It hosts an information service which monitors deportations and house demolitions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It maintains that they are in breach of the convention. It also maintains that there has been a very rapid increase in the use of such measures by the administration over the past year. There has been a rise in deportations as well as punitive house demolitions. Again, those have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.

Amnesty International is always very concerned about the use of live ammunition and the imprisonment of people who refuse to do military service. It has brought out some very worrying statistics. UNICEF, which spends 2½ million dollars a year in these territories, is also worried about the serious state of the health of young children. We are receiving clear indications from those organisations, which want nothing better than to work and improve the state of the people in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. Quite clearly that is a very difficult task.

From these Benches, we urge the Government to do two things: We should like them to support those voluntary organisations in giving further aid to enable them to increase their work. We should also like them to press for an international conference, which is the only framework in which to work out the future and to find a way towards a peaceful settlement.

We must remember that building peace out of conflict is a very slow process and demands understanding, trust and reconciliation. To find those ingredients on each side of this conflict will certainly need help and support from many different areas. I hope that the Israelis will play their part in working towards that peaceful settlement.

Perhaps I may quote my right honourable friend Mr. Kaufman, who said today: we believe that it is necessary for Israel to talk to enemies as well as friends in order to secure peace". I shall end on that note.

9.28 p.m.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has again demonstrated his deep knowledge of the Middle East, let alone his skill in timing, in drawing our attention today to the question of the Israeli practices in the occupied territories. I am very grateful to him for giving me notice of many of the points he covered in his speech and the questions he asked.

To some extent other contributors, the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, have ranged rather more widely. However, there can be no doubt of the concern we all feel, which the Government fully share, at the situation in the occupied territories and the lack of progress towards a negotiated settlement.

It is just over a year since the Palestinian uprising began. It shows no sign of abating. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, gave some figures. Mine are that over 300 Palestinians have been killed over the last year and thousands injured. Over 18,000 have been arrested. Some 5,000 are still detained; 1,600 of them without trial under administrative orders and many in appalling conditions. It is surely now clear to all that, as my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary warned before the uprising began, the status quo cannot continue. Repression offers no answer; it merely brutalises the occupiers.

Our view is clear. Pending its withdrawal as part of a comprehensive settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolution No. 242, Israel has a duty to administer the occupied territories in accordance with international law and human rights standards.

We agree of course that Israel has the right, indeed the responsibility, to ensure public order and safety in the occupied territories. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague regulations states this unambiguously; but there are limits. The maintenance of public order cannot justify the use of excessive force, including live ammunition and plastic bullets fired at close range and beatings of unarmed persons. The figures I have already quoted testify to the results of these policies. But they have not weakened Palestinian resolve; rather, every funeral strengthens it.

We, like the great majority of the international community, maintain that the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war of 12th August 1949 applies to the occupied territories. There is no substance in Israeli claims to the contrary. In our view the deportation of Palestinians from the occupied territories—32 so far this year—contravenes Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggests. This policy has been widely condemned, most notably in Resolutions 607 and 608 passed by the United Nations Security Council earlier this year. Population transfer, whatever the numbers involved, is unacceptable.

Collective punishments, too, such as the demolition of houses, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, referred, are prohibited not only by Article 50 of the 1907 Hague regulations but also by Article 33 of the fourth Geneva convention. They conflict, sadly, with Israel's proud traditions of justice and observance of the rule of law. They only add to the sum of Palestinian grievances. Israeli apologists sometimes argue that these punishments are provided for in regulations surviving from the British Mandate. Let me take this opportunity to make clear, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as he would have me do, that such is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. As a result of the Palestinian (Revocations) Order in Council 1948, the Palestine (Defence Order in Council 1937, and the defence regulations made under it, have not been in force, as a matter of English law, since the making of the 1948 revocation order. If the Israelis now seek to apply the same or similar regulations, that is their decision for which they must take responsibility.

I can confirm, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has told your Lordships, that schools and universities in the occupied territories have been closed by the Israelis on security grounds. We and our European partners have made representations to the Israelis but have been unable to convince them to take a different view of their security problems. The noble Viscount gave figures but I am afraid that I am riot in a position this evening to verify those figures but I shall look into the position to see whether I can provide any further information by letter.

We have repeatedly raised with the Israelis these and other breaches of the fourth Geneva convention. The Twelve approached the Israelis earlier this year about deportations; there have been no more deportations since our démarche on 18th August. My honourable friend the Minister of State raised the use of plastic bullets with the Israeli ambassador in September and the Twelve followed up in Jerusalem in October. We have also taken up a number of individual cases in some of which the action we sought has subsequently been taken. The Foreign Minister of Greece, speaking on behalf of the Twelve in this week's General Assembly debate on Palestine in Geneva, called once again on Israel to respect the convention. The Israelis can therefore be in no doubt of our views on this matter. We shall of course be ready to take up with them further breaches of the convention.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested a new body to monitor Israeli breaches of the convention. We and our partners in the Twelve already work together to monitor Israeli practices in the occupied territories and take up specific cases as appropriate. Therefore, while I hear what the noble Lord says, I have to say that we do not consider that additional machinery is needed. Nor do we think that cancellation of the EC's agreements with Israel, which are similar to those the EC has with other Mediterranean states, would help to secure Israeli compliance with the convention. Economic sanctions are not the answer to the complex problems of the Middle East.

We shall continue our own efforts to help to improve conditions in the occupied territories. We have increased our bilateral aid programme to £840,000 in 1987 and the European Community's aid has also gone up. Our own aid is spent largely on the training of Palestinians and in support of projects run by British non-governmental organisations to which I, too, gladly pay tribute for the very good work that they do.

We continue to be one of the largest contributors, both directly and via the EC, to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency who provide services, mainly health and education, for the 2.2 million registered Palestinian refugees in the region. I am glad to pay tribute now to the professionalism and dedication of UNRWA's staff, who include many Britons. They do a first-rate job. In addition to our annual contribution of £5.25 million to UNRWA's regular budget we are now contributing to the establishment of a new unit to assess the requirement for additional services in the West Bank and Gaza.

We have also played a leading role in promoting preferential access to the EC for Palestinian industrial and agricultural products. Palestinian producers have reached agreement with the Israeli authorities over export arrangements and contracts have now been signed to supply produce from the occupied territories to outlets in Europe. I understand that the first shipment of citrus fruit from Gaza is due to arrive in the Netherlands in the next few days. We shall continue to monitor closely how these arrangements work in practice.

In all these ways we are trying to help improve conditions in the occupied territories. But economic development can be no substitute for a just and lasting political settlement which will enable both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security. Such a settlement must be based on the two principles outlined in the Venice Declaration of 1980 which we and our European partners have consistently upheld; recognition of the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

The Venice Declaration also said that the PLO should be associated with any negotiations. Clearly, the Palestinians must be involved in any discussions of their own future and must be able to choose their own representatives at such discussions. Equally, the Israelis cannot be expected to negotiate with people pledged to the destruction of their state. That is why we have argued that the PLO, if it is to take part in negotiations, must accept Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, recognise Israel's right to a secure existence and renounce terrorism and violence.

On 9th December a senior adviser to Mr. Arafat, Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, met my honourable friend, the Minister of State, and issued a public statement which met in full our long-standing conditions for ministerial contact with the PLO. This was an important step forward which was confirmed by Mr. Arafat, in Geneva yesterday. We warmly welcome his clear statement which has opened the way to a dialogue between the US and the PLO and to the PLO's eventual participation in peace negotiations. We are greatly encouraged by this development.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked whether or not there was a possibility of a meeting here between the Secretary of State, the Foreign Ministers of the EC and Mr. Arafat. We have no such plan at present but we would be willing to consider it if we thought that a meeting would contribute to the peace process.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, I very much appreciate the Minister's reply. I did not specifically ask that the Secretary of State should meet Mr. Arafat but that he should meet appropriate representatives of the PLO.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, if I mistook the noble Lord, I apologise. Perhaps I may give him the same answer to that point. My honourable friend had a meeting only on 9th December. This is a step in that direction. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. We shall certainly consider any other suggestions for meetings in due course.

The PLO is now committed to the search for a peaceful solution. But that search will not be easy; the past 40 years have left a legacy of suspicion and hatred on both sides. The Palestinians will have to live up to their fair words and continue to demonstrate to Israel their genuine commitment to peace. Just as Israel will not repress the uprising by force, so the Palestinians will not achieve justice through terrorism and violence.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, it is now for Israel to respond positively to the PLO's commitment to peace. Israel too needs to confirm its acceptance of Security Council Resolution 242 and the principle of territory for peace. Israeli caution is understandable. But present Israeli policies offer no prospect of short-term quiet in the occupied territories let alone of a long-term solution. If Israel is to achieve the peace it needs, its Government must surely not denounce the PLO out of hand but test its good faith through face-to-face negotiations.

Like the noble Baroness, we still believe that an international conference under UN auspices offers the best framework for such negotiations. Such a conference should not have the power to impose solutions, nor to veto agreements freely negotiated between the parties; it would not therefore be a trap for Israel but an opportunity. We call on Israel to reconsider its opposition to a conference, and on its new leaders, whoever they may be, to have the courage that moderation and peace demand.

We look too to the new United States Administration, whose role in the peace process remains indispensable, to give priority to new efforts to bring about negotiations. We and our European partners remain ready to complement and support these efforts in any way we can.