Middle East Conflict

HL Deb 08 June 1988 vol 497 cc1409-42

3.5 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to call attention to the continuing conflict in the Middle East and to the efforts of the United States Secretary of State to convene an international conference; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree that the conflict in the Middle East is a most intractable and possibly the most dangerous problem facing the international community today. That is why we believe it is appropriate to discuss the matter in this short debate.

There are also other reasons for debating the subject today. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be meeting the United States Secretary of State in Madrid tomorrow and on Friday, and we assume that this subject will be high on the agenda. Secondly, Arab leaders are holding a very important three-day meeting in Algiers and their conclusions and willingness or otherwise to consider the possibilities of a conference could be of immense significance. Therefore, our debate is being held at the right moment.

The Motion refers to the efforts of Mr. George Shultz to convene an international conference. I believe that we would all agree that his patience and persistence over a long period in seeking some measure of agreement between the leaders of the countries concerned deserve our admiration and full support. He has often been received coldly and frequently been discouraged. It has seemed time and again that his mission is hopeless. Some have said that he should call it a day, and I am sure that he himself has felt at times that his confidence was ebbing. On the one hand, he came up against Mr. Shamir's refusal to give clear approval to the central elements of the plan that he was putting forward. On the other hand, he faced the criticism of even moderate Arab states of what they see as an American bias towards the Israelis.

When he asked about possible future talks, Mr. Shultz said: I am willing to keep this thing rolling". He also said: We want to avoid any war that will be unlike any conflict we've seen before, involving more casualties, and harder to contain". He referred to the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a "dead-end street" and the belief that it can continue as "an illusion". He has done some plain speaking and the Arab leaders must have seen that it was plain speaking to Mr. Shamir.

However, it is to his very great credit that Mr. Shultz did not abandon hope and that he has been in the Middle East again over the past few days to pursue his peace initiative. It may be said that the prospects are bleak but I do not see them as entirely gloomy. Mr. Shimon Peres and Mr. Yitzhak Rabin have indicated support for the plan. Mr. Rabin said recently: The Shultz initiative is the most concrete proposal placed before the Israeli Government, and the Governments of Jordan, Egypt and Syria and the four additional powers since 1982". He went on to say: if we do not accept the initiative in principle we will miss an opportunity that might not return". Furthermore, we should note that, apart from the PLO, no Arab party has rejected Mr. Shultz's peace plans outright. I am sure that neither I nor any noble Lord would minimise the difficulties.

Mr. Shultz's mission began last February following the outbreak of violent unrest in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Over the past five months these outbreaks have claimed the lives of 186 Palestinians and two Israelis. That is one of the prices of failure to reach an agreement. If an accord is not achieved the rioting and killing will go on and on, with unpredictable results. Anyone who tries to argue that this is none of our business is talking irresponsibly.

Of course, we recognise that any eventual settlement must emerge from the Middle East itself, with the approval of the Arabs and the Israelis. However, there has been sporadic communal conflict in these areas since the end of the mandate for which we were responsible. We remember in particular the riots which occurred on 29th November 1947 and the recommendations made at that time by the United Nations. We cannot wash our hands completely of those events. While there is an obvious limit to what we can hope to do 40 years later, we must also use our best endeavours to help towards a settlement.

The communal violence in the occupied areas has caused grave concern, especially to those who are friends of Israel. For example, Oxfam, which has a splendid record in the field of human rights, is concerned about the way in which the workers in Al-Haq have been treated. Oxfam reports that since the beginning of the uprising the Israeli Army has arrested people wholesale without distinction, especially at the scenes of demonstrations and confrontations. Since January, four Al-Haq workers have been arrested in these wholesale sweeps even though they carried identity cards clearly showing that they work for a human rights organisation. Their presence at demonstrations is either fortuitous or because they are collecting evidence of human rights violations.

The European Parliament, at the suggestion of Oxfam, passed a Motion in May requesting Israel to respect the identity of Al-Haq workers. Unhappily no response has yet been forthcoming from the Israeli Government. Al-Haq is an internationally recognised human rights organisation which has won a number of international awards for its work. It is also the local chapter of the International Commission of Jurists. Oxfam argues strongly that Israel should be asked again to respond on the question of protection for Al-Haq workers if its claim to govern by the rule of law is to be considered valid. I am sure that every democrat in Israel—and the great majority are democrats—will wish to respond to that plea from Oxfam.

What can a British government do to help towards a resolution of these awful problems? The answer is that Her Majesty's Government can operate through several channels; and I was glad to note that on 24th May the EC urged the United States and the Soviet Union to put the Middle East on their Moscow agenda in order to keep the United States' sponsored peace talks alive, and that Mr. Hans Dietrich Genscher, the current President of the EC Council, said that it was important that "there be no marking of time" in the Middle East peace process.

One significant and necessary development would be the resumption of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Israel. We hope this was discussed between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan last week. President Reagan stopped in London on his way home to discuss this matter with the right honourable lady the Prime Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, can comment on that and also on any other proposals which the Government may have in mind for the European Community summit in Hanover to be held in a few days' time. I am sure that we are all glad to learn that Mr. Shamir is to meet the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze at the United Nations this week. This will be the highest level of contact between Israel and the Soviet Union that has taken place for several years. We hope that the talks will be constructive.

We remember the previous efforts to find a settlement at Camp David, and on other occasions. We know how complex is the situation. Therefore, what is Mr. Shultz now proposing and will he fare any better than those who went before him? As the House knows, his plan envisages self rule for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and negotiations, within an agreed timetable, on the final status of these territories. His plan further proposes that talks would be initiated by an international peace conference at which all regional interests, together with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, would be represented. This latter proposal would give strength and stability to any agreement. It would also bring the Soviet Union on to the scene. There would be a chance of permanent peace for the first time.

The uprising in the occupied territories has reunited the Arab world around the Palestinian cause. The Algiers Conference points to that. It could also open the door to a change in the status quo. Conversely, it could be a lost opportunity and a wasted sacrifice. I say that because it does not appear that Israel is going to withdraw unconditionally from the occupied territories with the subsequent emergence of an independent Palestine state.

A more sensible assessment may be that the uprising could lead to real progress in the peace process, leading to an agreed Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. What stands in the way is Israel's rejection of the PLO, on the one hand, and the PLO's refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, on the other. Those are the two obstacles in the way of real progress. A refusal by both sides to make a reconciliatory move, to be resilient enough to find negotiating possibilities in Mr. Shultz's plan, will only result in more violence, more brutality, more deaths and more suffering. The unfolding tragedy of the Middle East stems from this unwillingness to take one small step towards conciliation. That is the major tragedy of the Middle East.

The Question often asked is why the United States does not bring more pressure to bear on the Israeli Government. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel and the treatment of the Palestinian rioters by some members of the Israeli Army shocked many friends of Israel, including American-Jewish opinion which is very powerful as noble Lords will be aware. Furthermore, on the practical side United States military and economic aid to Israel is immense. Military aid is about £1.8 billion per annum and economic aid is in the region of £1.2 billion per annum.

It certainly appears that Mr. Shultz has brought pressure to bear on the Israeli Government but that Mr. Shamir has unfortunately responded coldly to that pressure and to the the proposals made. Another factor we would not wish to overlook is that general elections are pending in both Israel and the United States. In this country we well know the implications of that.

The view of my noble friends and that of the Labour Party has been made clear by Mr. Kinnock and Mr. Gerald Kaufman. They have called for full support for an international conference which should provide for guarantees of secure borders for Israel; for the demilitarisation of the West Bank and Gaza; for a homeland for the Palestinian people; and for equal treatment for all without regard to race and religion. Those objectives, which are broadly supported by the Security Council resolution, also have I believe the general support of Her Majesty's Government.

I admire the State of Israel and have done so for 40 years. We want to see a prospering Israel within secure and guaranteed borders. That is the objective to which all of us subscribe. We also want to see a fair and compassionate resolution of the Palestinian problem. These objectives are attainable and their achievement would bring stability to the Middle East, with all that that implies. A great responsibility lies on Mr. Shamir and his colleagues. An equal responsibility lies on the Arab states. The need is that both sides should be prepared to accept moderate solutions. If Her Majesty's Government do all within their power, through all the avenues I have mentioned and which are at their disposal, to help towards this most necessary end of beginning the peace process in the Middle East, they can rely on our total support. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.19 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Gwydir

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, because despite our occasional political differences, we have long been old friends. As far as I am concerned, he is an old and valued friend whom I have long admired. I should like to congratulate him on his speech which was delivered, as I would expect, with authority and quality, and much of it I accept. I believe that the objectives which he spelled out are ones which most of us would hope for as a proper solution to the problems of the Middle East.

Not surprisingly, in his speech the noble Lord concentrated almost exclusively on the Arab-Israel conflict, in particular on the Palestine problem. He referred to the problems that exist on the West Bank and in Gaza. The Motion he introduced calls attention to: the continuing conflict in the Middle East". I believe it is agreed that the Israel-Arab conflict is riot the central problem in the Middle East as regards world peace. It would be a delusion to think that with the removal of conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbours the Middle East would be a peaceful place. Events in Iran and Iraq, North and South Yemen, Sudan and other places, have no connection with the existence of Israel. However, it seems true that their common hatred of Israel is probably the one unifying force among the Arab leaders now meeting in Algiers.

It is of interest to reflect that 12 of those leaders—that is more than half of all the Arab countries—attained office as a result of violence against their predecessor and in most cases death. In Israel, not so long ago, Mr. Peres, in accordance with agreement, peacefully handed over the premiership to his political opponent, Mr. Shamir. As far as I remember, all Israeli Prime Ministers have, in their time, relinquished office democratically and peacefully. In the Middle East such behaviour is clearly eccentric.

Those among us who seize every opportunity to criticise and attack Israel should remember that she is the only democracy in that part of the world and the only reliable ally of the West in an area seething with inter-Arab conflict, where terror flourishes and where instability is the norm. Over the past few years I had the good fortune to visit Israel on many occasions and to meet her politicians and her people. One thing is quite clear: what the Israelis yearn for is peace—"Shalom" is their habitual greeting.

However, for the whole of the 40 years of its existence as a nation, Israel has faced furious hostility from its neighbours and a succession of military attempts to destroy it. In addition, it is the target of unremitting terrorism both at home and abroad. It is therefore understandable that Israelis seek not just peace, but peace with security. A peace settlement is only possible if it secures Israel's right to a peaceful existence and is seen by the Israelis themselves to do so.

It is now 20 years since Resolution 242 was passed at the United Nations and accepted by Israel. It is that Resolution that is the basis of all the peace plans and initiatives that we and others have supported over those years. The Camp David agreement was an unprecedented event of major significance and the continuing relationship between Israel and Egypt and Egypt and Jordan is of optimistic importance. There is widespread acceptance that only a peaceful political settlement of the Palestinian problem can provide the key to stability and harmony in that region. It was hoped that the Camp David accord would provide it but differences arose between Egypt, Jordan and Israel as to what was meant by "autonomy".

It is clear that there can be no solution to the Palestine problem without the active participation of Jordan. However, King Hussein was not prepared to negotiate openly with Israel except under the umbrella of an international conference. As I can see it, the Shultz initiative is designed to meet that reluctance.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, the Secretary of State's plan is that the United Nations' sponsored conference would involve all the permanent members of the Security Council, including the Soviet Union, and it should act as a framework and a launching pad for bilateral negotiations between Israel and Jordan. The Palestinian issue would be discussed with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, and any decisions reached would not be referred back to the international conference which would have no power of veto.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that that is an initiative worthy of support. I also agree that it is particularly important, because of its influence on Syria, that the Soviet Union be included. I hope—I believe that the noble Lord agrees with me—that if the international conference ever materialised the Soviet Union would by then have resumed diplomatic relations with Israel. As the noble Lord pointed out, a major problem is the composition of the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.

When one considers the PLO manifesto which still calls for the liberation of the whole of Palestine and the total elimination of Israel, the reluctance and concern of the Israelis to negotiate with the PLO is understandable. Yesterday an Arab mayor who co-operated with the Israel administration was stabbed in an attempt to kill him. The sad question is this: are there any Palestinian leaders brave and strong enough to disavow terrorism; to recognise UN Resolution 242 and to agree to Israel's right to exist? I confess that I do not know the answer.

Today's news indicates that Mr. Shultz's initiative has suffered, to say the least, some setback. He left yesterday, after his fourth tour of the Middle East with little, if any, support from the Arabs. If the report in today's issue of The Times is correct, the conditions spelled out in Algiers yesterday for an international conference are obviously unacceptable and demonstrate a clear rejection of the Shultz plan. They reject negotiation between parties and insist that the international conference should dictate a pre-ordained solution.

The majority of the Arab leaders have no interest in a peacefully negotiated settlement. I have no doubt that today's meeting will show that they are more concerned with fermenting and orchestrating the continuance of riotous demonstrations in Gaza and the West Bank. Despite those obvious setbacks, I do not believe that the problem is insoluble.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, talked in terms of perseverance and patience. That is what is required. I believe that the Shultz plan has the germ of success and deserves every support.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, I know that my noble friends would wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for initiating this timely debate and to associate those on these Benches with his call for an international conference. We entirely agree with him in the respect we feel for the patience and persistence of Mr. Shultz in his four visits to the Middle East. On the other hand, we would not share the hopes about the Shultz initiative just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

One major reason for the failure—and it has failed—of the mission is that Mr. Shultz would try to deal with the Palestinians by negotiating with King Hussein of Jordan. Why should one suppose that that is a road to peace? The Palestinians do not accept that. Overwhelmingly, the majority of the Palestinians support the PLO. A peace initiative that is based on negotiations with the monarch of a neighbouring territory is doomed to failure from the start. The failure of the Shultz mission was predictable. It is hard to expect Mr. Shultz to influence Mr. Shamir when he states publicly in advance of his talks that the United States will never pressure Israel to change its policies, and that the United States will continue massive military and economic aid to Israel at a level of 3 billion dollars a year no matter how abruptly Israel rejects advice about its future and the future of Palestine. As a result Mr. Shamir can and does happily and frequently bite the American hand that feeds him, relying on the strong hold of the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States over the Congress and the Administration.

That is the reality. In saying that I say nothing to denigrate the real efforts and the persistence of Mr. Shultz. But nor can he expect to influence the Arabs when again he says, publicly and in advance, that he opposes any question of self-determination for the Palestinians—not self-rule, which is very different—and contacts of any kind with the PLO. If, on the other hand, Mr. Shultz's visits improve the electoral chances of Mr. Peres, that is probably something gained. The Israeli Labour Party does not have a good record. It was in power for 10 years—10 years when the possibilities of a settlement were far better than they are now, and before the two sides became radicalised. The Israeli Labour Governments failed to take their chances. Nevertheless the Labour Party in Israel does at least want an international conference and does at least accept the principle of trading land for peace. Therefore those who want a settlement in the Middle East must hope for the success of the Labour Party in the coming elections. Whether that will happen is another matter.

We must not deceive ourselves. The international conference would be a start. However, unless it addresses itself to the heart of the problem it is almost certain to end in deadlock. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the heart of the problem is not the mutual recognition of the two parties, though that is vital. Mutual multilateral recognition would be a tremendous step forward. It is absurd to expect the Israelis to recognise the PLO unless the PLO recognises Israel. It is absurd to expect the PLO to recognise Israel when one Israeli leader after another has said that even if it did so the Israelis would not recognise the PLO. However, the heart of the problem surely is trying to reconcile the Palestinians' demand for self-determination with Israel's perception of its security. That is the heart of the problem.

I do not believe it is widely felt, even in Israel, that a Palestinian state in itself would present a military threat to the Israelis. Even if it were not demilitarised by the treaty—as it would be—even if there were no peace keeping forces between the two states under the treaty—and there would be—the idea that this tiny open territory, embraced on three sides by Israel, could present a serious military threat is obviously ridiculous. No imagination is needed to see that a Palestinian government would be powerfully motivated to keep the peace with Israel. It would be infinitely vulnerable to economic and military reprisals, and even to reinvasion, and it would be far more motivated than the PLO is today to establish proper relations with Israel and to repress acts of violence against Israel. That is the reality.

Israel may still worry that the other Arab governments might join the PLO in military adventures against her. But why should the establishment of a Palestinian state make the Arab governments more aggressive towards Israel? Today, when the Palestinians are oppressed, when Israel is in many instances in breach of international law and United Nations' resolutions, not one Arab government dreams of contemplating military action against Israel. So when the Palestinians have been given a measure of justice and freedom, when Israel is recognised under the treaty, and when Israel's security has been underwritten by the treaty, why in those circumstances should the Arab governments be more aggressively inclined? It is common sense that the granting of self-determination to the Palestinians would increase and not diminish the security of Israel.

And what alternatives are there? How far does occupation increase Israel's security? It is turning her closest friends into enemies; it is dividing her own people; it is unifying the Arab governments; it is embarrassing the Americans and dividing them from their NATO allies. It calls for huge defence budgets, for prolonged conscription, for increasing censorship, for regular punitive raids on Lebanon. And all the time the long-term balance of power is moving against Israel—economic, financial, demographic, political, diplomatic and even military. Continued suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories would spell disaster for Israel.

However, finally, we must consider whether an Israeli Government can be persuaded or pressed into acknowledging this and into acting on it. When visiting Brussels recently, Mr. Peres said: Europe can and must play a role in the search for a different future for the Middle Fast, one of peace and economic prosperity". My noble friends and I warmly agree with that. The Community, with the British Government playing a distinguished part, has laid down the right principles for a settlement—security for Israel, self-determination for the Palestinians and the participation in the peace process of the PLO. On past occasions, members of the Community have offered active participation in a peace-keeping force in Palestine. The Foreign Ministers recently discussed an informal Italian proposal for an interim administration of the occupied territories by the Community, subject to the United Nations.

With the failure of the Shultz mission the time is surely ripe—perhaps at this conference in Hanover—for the Community to make a fresh initiative along these lines. Perhaps a new Israeli Government and a new Administration in Washington will be readier to co-operate. It is in the interests of the Palestinians and of the Israelis alike that such an initiative should be made now, and should succeed.

3.40 p.m.

Lord Greenhill of Harrow

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for bringing forward this important matter. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I cannot claim any recent experience of the Middle East; but I have been familiar with the problem for a long time—indeed, since the associates of the present Prime Minister of Israel came near to blowing me up in the King David Hotel.

In my view, the outlook is extremely gloomy, and I do not share the gleams of hope that I detected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. The fourth visit of Mr. Shultz to Israel seems to have brought nothing new except some very plain speaking of a most disturbing kind. The outcome of the Arab summit in Algiers—from what has been revealed so far—does not seem to suggest either compromise or goodwill. However, it is right to draw attention continuously to the potentially dangerous situation in the area. Nevertheless, international attention will not necessarily bring an early settlement; but it may give the conflicting parties pause for thought and hold them back from extreme adventures. The recent visit by Mr. Shultz should have had that effect and it is especially important because it has taken place as an election approaches in Lebanon, in Israel and in his native country, the United States of America.

I think the details of the plan which Mr. Shultz has tried to have adopted are familiar to many noble Lords. However, it seems to have been rejected by all the parties thus far. Nevertheless, the prolongation of dialogue and the talk about an international conference cannot be unhelpful at this time.

I fear that there is little hope for a resolution of the conflict for several years to come. There are far too many apparently irreconcilable factors involved. Perhaps I may remind the House of some of those factors and ask the Minister whether he feels able to comment upon what I say.

First, there is the call for universal recognition of Israel's right to exist. Of course that sounds simple enough. But, right to exist within what frontiers and with what guarantees of security? The present Prime Minister of Israel makes the widest claims for the ultimate extent of Israeli territory. As I understand his claims, this would include not only the occupied territories but also the wider areas which are claimed as a biblical inheritance. Can the Minister confirm that there have been signs that those wide territorial claims are gaining increasing acceptance in Israel, especially among the younger people, and that once again the question of the relocation of the Palestinians is often spoken about?

Prime Minister Shamir has not hesitated to "cock a snook" at the efforts of the American Administration for several years, and I see no reason why he will not continue to do so. It is by no means certain that the outcome of the November election in Israel will permit a more flexible attitude on its territorial claims.

Secondly, the Palestinian claim for an independent state on the basis of self-determination is now so firmly established, and supported internationally, that I do not believe that local autonomy for Palestinians is acceptable, except possibly as a short, temporary step towards full independence. Further, I can see no compromise in sight on the future of Jerusalem.

I should like to ask the Minister what he believes has been the effect of the current Palestinian uprising? Surely it has been to consolidate the PLO's position and to reduce the likelihood of any Palestinian negotiators emerging who would be acceptable to the Israeli Government. Arab children may be ready to go back to school, as we have gladly read, but no doubt they go back with increased hatred and resentment.

Then there is the unsolved problem of the Palestine refugees in those appalling camps in Lebanon. They must eventually rejoin their compatriots. Moreover, their presence in Lebanon is an obstacle to the revision of the religious balance which is an essential prelude to the end of the civil war in Lebanon and an overall settlement of the problems of that country.

What does the Minister think will be the effect of the inevitable demographic changes in the region? The Arabs will soon equal the Jews in numbers within the existing state of Israel; and the Arab populations in the occupied territories and the areas surrounding Israel are rapidly increasing. It was recently said that more Jews were leaving Israel than arriving. Then there remains the problem of the future of the Jews in the Soviet Union. If glasnost permits their greatly accelerated emigration, will they bypass Israel on their way to other destinations—especially the United States—or will they be received in their homeland and be seen as a further threat to the Palestinians?

Does the Minister believe that there will be a change in Israeli policies as a new generation gradually takes over political control and replaces those with bitter personal memories of Europe, the Holocaust and the wars that involved the founding of Israel? The Israeli Government believe they can continue to rely on strong American support—even stronger if Mr. Dukakis becomes president of the United States.

However, since the ill-starred invasion of Lebanon, has Israel the same confidence in its military domination of the Arab countries as there is now the ominous presence of nuclear weapons and long-distance missiles? What will be the effect of the new relationship of the superpowers and the likely growth of Soviet influence in the area? Of course I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer those questions, but I ask them in order to emphasise to the House the magnitude of the many problems with which we are all faced.

An international conference on the lines presently supported by Her Majesty's Government, and other countries, cannot quickly solve those problems. Of course there may be virtue in discussing them frankly around an international table as a first step; but far more vigorous pressure on the parties to the basic conflict by the superpowers and by EC members, over a long period, will be necessary even to patch up a lasting truce which will hold until the passage of time creates attitudes which may bring a final settlement within reach. It is idle to pretend that in the interim there is not a danger of a further war.

3.50 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords and Ladies, the arguments in this discussion are being broadly and swiftly covered. I wish to start with the question of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme. The Government (in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur) have recently committed themselves to the view (col. 316 of Hansard for 17th May) that there is no evidence either to confirm or deny the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons programme. That is an extraordinarily strong position to take. It means that all the old news about the military capability of the nuclear facility built with French assistance in Dimona was false Further, it means that the spate of stories—especially over the past two or three years—from the United States about nuclear weapons information obtained by Israeli spies operating in the United States was also false. Above all, it means that Mr. Mordecai Vanunu, whom we remember pretty well, I think, was a liar. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about this. I wonder what was the nature and scope of the inquiries made by the Government which enabled them to come to the forceful conclusion that all those reports were false, a tissue of lies, and that there is no evidence of the existence of the programme.

If those inquiries were in any way less thorough than they should have been, our country is going blindfold into a dangerous future. The matter is of more intense interest these days because of the existence—the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has already referred to this—cif the Israeli theatre ballistic missile capability—the Arrow missile. While all these things are going on, the British Government, through the machinery of the strategic defence initiative in Washington, are contributing in double harness with Israel to the next generation's military hardware problems.

It is also worth noticing that Spain is now using an Israeli firm to update its French-built Mirages and we must never forget that the NATO supreme commander and other American NATO commanders are national commanders of American forces in the Middle East. When talking about Israel, we are not talking about a country with which we are not linked. That is not the case. We are, through the American alliances of both this country and Israel, closely and militarily linked to Israel.

I turn now to the United States peace efforts in the Middle East. I of course join all those who wish Mr. Shultz success in his long trail. The United States has never got very far in this matter. Henry Kissinger got a little distance ahead 15 years ago, but he had a professional grounding in the history and ethology of the sovereign state as a form of human organisation, including the effects of massive concentrations of weapons in one state paid for by another.

In the past two generations, the West has created many sovereign states in the Middle East. It is unrealistic to expect them to behave differently or better in any way than sovereign states elsewhere have throughout their history. However much goodwill successive Secretaries of State may bring to the project, the United States cannot hope to succeed—this point was touched on forcefully by my noble friend Lord Mayhew—while maintaining the greatest military aid programme, possibly in the history of the world, and certainly in the history of the post-war world. I mean, of course, relative to the population of the receiving country—Israel. The scale of American military and civil assistance to Israel is a unique phenomenon. The scale of Soviet military assistance to Syria is outstanding. By Soviet standards it is at a high level compared with the receiving population. The two naturally stand or fall together. It is fair to say that it was not the Russians which started it.

Successive American administrations have believed that in some way they can have a role in settling the Middle East problem which is separable from their patronage of Israel. They also believe that they can have a role which need not be matched by the Soviet Union. At least, they believed that until recently. What is most hopeful about the Shultz approach is that he seems willing to agree that at the proposed international conference the Soviet Union should be present, because it is the military patron, especially, of Syria, in the same way that the United States is the military patron of Israel.

The United States has some difficulty in grasping how Israel is perceived by its Arab neighbours. All noble Lords should lay their cards on the table at this point. I have had the benefit of visits to Israel and all four of her neighbouring countries within the past three or four years. Her Arab neighbours see a country which has invaded and occupied, illegally and against United Nations declarations, part of their territories. Of course, the Jordanian view is slightly different because the legal status of the West Bank is different.

Two of the four occupied territories have been mentioned repeatedly in the debate—the West Bank and Gaza. We must not forget the continued military occupation of part of Southern Lebanon or—a place which has not been mentioned—the Golan. I call it the Golan because to say the Golan Heights is to adopt the Israeli position. It is true that the top of the hill called the Golan is very high above the Israeli plain, and it is not very high above the Syrian plain on the other side; but, nevertheless, if the suitability of the top of a mountain range to be a frontier is to be judged by the height of the descent on the other side, there is no common sense in the world. No, the Golan is as serious a problem as any one of the other three, and will have to be handled if peace is to be brought.

The signs are perhaps good. It is already the Arab view that there must be an international conference with decision-making powers. I believe the American position—that it should have decision-making powers except in so far as may already have been agreed between Israel and Jordan—is not practical and will have to give way. The big conference must have the final powers. The Arab position is also that the PLO must be represented at the conference. There again, the Americans will have to give way. The whole business is about certain stateless people who are represented—though not perfectly because it is difficult to have perfect elections when one is stateless—by the PLO and the various factions which make it up.

The Arab summit position is that the five permanent members of the Security Council should be at the conference, which is obviously a sine qua non for progress. Their position is that the Palestinians must have self-determination, including the right to demand an independent state. I believe that that is their wording. The shape of that independent state and its relationship with any neighbours are left wide open.

Before I come to the flowers for Israel, one more regret: the fact that Jerusalem, which is by an extraordinary gift of history sacred to all three versions of monotheism—namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam—has been annexed and is used as the capital of a confessional state that stands in the name of only one, is a tragedy. If it can be corrected by the big conference, much will have been gained.

Lastly, like anyone who has been there, I think I should say that I was overcome with admiration and love for the great achievements of successive governments of Israel towards their own people in their own allotted territory—allotted in 1948. If they could devote their vast energies, spiritual, intellectual and technical, to exporting to their neighbours the knowledge of how to do what they have done rightly in their own country, instead of standing on their neighbours' necks, the world would indeed be grateful to them ever hereafter.

3.58 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who drew attention to the fact that my noble friend's Motion calls attention to the continuing conflict (in the singular) in the Middle East, although, as he pointed out, there are many conflicts in that area. Neither he nor any of the subsequent speakers have referred to any of those conflicts, although the fighting in the so-called Gulf War (the Iraq-Iran war) is far more serious in terms of human suffering and loss of life than any other in the area.

I wish to turn to that area, and to be even more eccentric by devoting most if not all of my remarks to the 20 million Kurdish people who inhabit the Middle East, and in particular to the 6 or 7 million who are in Iraq and are therefore very actively caught up with the fighting there. I have been deeply involved with the Kurdish people for over 20 years, since I first went there in the time of the Mulla Mustafa Barzani. Indeed, I hope to revisit them shortly in their homelands.

The remaining Kurds are divided between Turkey and Iran, with enclaves in the Soviet Union and Syria. The division took place as a result of the British reneging on the Treaty of Sevres, which was signed in 1920 and which would have given a united Kurdistan independence as a separate state. Therefore the British still have some responsibility for the troubles in which the Kurds find themselves today.

The Kurds in Iraq find themselves caught up in the Gulf War and have suffered the most appalling atrocities committed against them by the Baghdad Government. Yet extremely little attention has been paid to them by politicians and by the media in the West. I wish to give three examples of the Kurds' agony. I could give many more. First, some 3,000 villages in Iraqi Kurdistan have been razed to the ground by government forces in recent years. These are villages inside Iraq. People there were executed or imprisoned without trial or transported to other parts of Iraq in pursuit of the hateful policy of Arabisation. Secondly, thousands of Kurds of military age, males, have been abducted by the all-powerful security forces and have never been heard of again, either by their families or by the senior Kurdish politicians with whom I have very close personal contacts.

Worst of all, in the past year chemical warfare has been extensively waged by the Baghdad Government against the Kurds of Iraq, culminating in the devastating attacks on Halabja on 16th and 17th March this year in which at least 2,000 and probably up to 4,000 civilians—most of them women and children, because the men were all away fighting—are known to have been killed by cyanide and nerve gases. Reports of this massacre alone have appeared in the press here.

The Kurds of Iraq have fought for decades and are still fighting for basic human justice and self-determination. Until recently, they have been content to state their aim as the achievement of a wide degree of autonomy — that is the word they chose to use—within the framework of the Iraqi state. But now they will accept such autonomy only if the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad is first replaced by a democratic regime. So long as Sadam or his party are in power the aim is to achieve full independence.

From time to time over the decades Iran has found it expedient to support the Kurds of Iraq, first under the Shah, until the Algiers Accord of 1975, when he withdrew his support and at once the Kurdish revolution collapsed, and now under Khomeini. But in both cases this has been very much a marriage of convenience. Certainly now there is no sympathy on the part of the Kurds, who are Sunnis and who arc not a very religious people, but they are Sunnis, with the Shi'ite fundamentalists. So they are waging a completely separate struggle, although both the Kurds and the Iranians seek the same end; that is, the departure of President Sadam and his regime. Kurdish involvement has a major impact on the balance of power in the Gulf War because some 80,000 Iraqi troops are tied down on the northern front.

Significant territorial gains have been made after bitter fighting by the Pesh Merga guerillas of the PUK and the KDP, the two nationalist parties who exist in Kurdistan and who have now formed a full alliance. They now control several thousand square miles of their homeland, more than ever before in their history. This fighting, which is continuing, has been largely unreported in the Western media, as have the gains on the northern front by the Iranian army, which far outweigh the much trumpeted reoccupation of the Fao peninsula by the Iraqis themselves.

I support the Kurdish people in their just aims. I believe that the people and the governments of the West should be more aware of their part in this conflict in the Middle East and more forthright in the condemnation of the atrocities that are still being committed against them.

Since I see that I have a couple of minutes left, I should like to close by referring briefly to reports that have appeared lately in the press about my supposed involvement in the release of the hostages in Beirut, which I take also to be part of the conflict in the Middle East.

Last Sunday, sitting at home in Ireland, I picked up the Sunday Express. Turning to page 2 I saw a headline: "Peer in hostage rescue bid". I turned to it with much interest, to see which of your Lordships might be involved in this rescue bid, and was amazed to find that it was me. The report begins by saying that I am leaving shortly, mounting a mission to rescue the hostages, and that I intend to go to Tehran for a meeting with the kidnappers' leaders, including Sheikh Muhammed Faldallah—spelt wrongly—spiritual head of the Hezbollah. It happens that I hope to go to Tehran shortly. I am not leading any mission. Sheikh Faldallah is, as far as I know, not there anyway. I have had no contact of any kind with him.

The paper went on to say that I would be meeting Speaker Rafsanjani to talk about the hostages. If Speaker Rafsanjani were inclined to give me an interview, as a visiting journalist, I would be perfectly delighted to meet him, but I have not made any such arrangement. The figure "9", perhaps fortunately, is on the clock, but I should just say that I brought a message from the Hezbollah to the Foreign Office via another intermediary. In this case it is the other way round and the Foreign Office denies that I ever brought such a message. Therefore I do not quite know what to believe; but that has been the full extent of my involvement.

4.9 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the Middle East is everyone's concern. It is the crucible of hatred in the world. The hatreds fomented not least in the territories occupied by Israel spill out in terrorism directed principally against European countries. The danger of war is ever present, and each war has the capacity to be more calamitous than the last, as missiles acquire longer ranges, wider distribution and more ominous warheads. No one can say what countries may be sucked into, and perhaps destroyed by, another war. So Europe's vital interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict is established even without reference to factors of commerce and national resources.

In addition, European countries are experienced and knowledgeable in Middle Eastern affairs. Yet Europe's influence—in which the British influence is subsumed—is only marginal. Why is this? The reason is that Europe, because her security is dependent on America, dare not mount too strong a challenge on the American position.

So we wait upon America. But America is in thrall to Israel. The influence of Israel on America, through the pro-Israel lobby in America, is far greater than that of America on Israel. It seems that at no point has America been able to restrain Israel. America forgives every defiance by Israel of American advice or American preference, and if the consequences of that defiance have been expensive, nevertheless America pays for them.

However intransigent Israel has been and whatever illegal acts she has committed—establishing territories, deporting Israeli-Arabs, carrying out cautionary or punitive raids on neighbouring states or the massively destructive invasions into Lebanon—American aid rises inexorably, almost exponentially, to the enormous levels which have been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Mayhew. It amounts to a constant transfusion without which Israel could hardly be expected to survive, and certainly not defy the world and survive.

In addition, Israel has a free trade agreement with America. That is not something to be sneezed at with today's protectionist clouds on the horizon. For this thraldom America pays dearly in political terms too. It should not be forgotten that Israel played a leading role—not just the role of an agent—in the events of Irangate.

As regards policy rather than influence, Europe established its position by means of the 1980 Venice Declaration. I am sure that the principles stated in that hold good today. They are that the Palestinians should have self-determination and that the PLO should be accepted as negotiating partners. It makes no sense to look for other representatives of the Palestinians, whether it is Jordan or anyone else. The Palestinians cannot have representatives imposed on them other than those they want themselves, or they will not be representatives. Moreover, if Israel really wanted to negotiate, she would not be deterred from talking to the PLO, even if its members were terrorists. After all, that was the road to the solution in Algeria. France sat down with the enemy.

As regards an international conference, I am inclined to the view that it should include on a continuing basis the permanent members of the Security Council. Without them there is surely the danger of a conference developing into a competition between the Arabs and the Israelis to see who can manoeuvre the other into the position of blame for its collapse.

The value of the United States involvement would be for its potential influence on Israel; and that of the Soviet Union for its influence on Arab parties. Moreover, it seems a propitious time to involve the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is demonstrating a reinvigorated and remarkably flexible new diplomacy in the Middle East. The Soviet Union's paramount interest there at the present time, I should have thought, was similar to Europe's; namely, to neutralise a dangerous area by means of a political settlement.

Europe's role at such a conference would be as an honest broker and to encourage realism, in particular to encourage the acceptance by the Arabs that in return for the recognition of the Palestinians' right to statehood, there must be recognition by them of the right of Israel to permanent existence in conditions of security. But this process can only be started by Israel, which is the party in possession, deciding to negotiate.

And so we come back to the obstacle and, in my view, the single overriding fact today, which is that Israel wants to deny, and if possible to destroy, Palestinian aspirations to nationhood. All the other arguments—that the PLO is a terrorist organisation, that it must first state that it recognises Israel's right to exist and other such reasons—are a camouflage for that essential fact.

Nevertheless, while Israel tries, as she does now, to veil from international eyes her handling of the uprising, as South Africa does, she would do well to reflect on the effect that such brutal repression has on her image. The Jewish people risk forfeiting the special position of sympathy which they have deservedly occupied in Western consciousness since the end of the last war, if Israel persists in her cruel persecutions.

Over 40 years ago the Jews horrified the world with the revelation of their unique wartime fate, and in doing so plunged a generation into guilt for not having addressed itself in time to prevent those awful crimes. Today it is the Palestinians who are exposing to international view the wounds which have been inflicted on them in the intervening years. It remains only for them to receive the same due recognition—and may it not, this time, come too late.

4.16 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I must start by apologising to the Minister in case I am unable to be present to hear the whole of his reply to this debate owing to an inescapable commitment to a voluntary organisation. I cheerfully and gladly undertake to study his words in full in Hansard tomorrow.

I venture to speak very briefly in this debate as a visitor to Israel and the occupied territories of Arab Palestine on three occasions during the past 11 years. The most recent one was just after Easter of this year. This beautiful area is an archeologist's paradise which is bound to make one think historically. My mind went back to the Crusader's little state, and to the condition of Ireland during the 17th century prior to 1690.

Such thoughts can be dangerous as every historical analogy and parallel needs to be corrected by an understanding of the differences of context, cultures, technology and countless other factors. The state of Israel has been recognised by Egypt and now enjoys an agreed and internationally accepted frontier on its western side. Recognition and an agreed boundary are desperately needed on its eastern side. Here we have to notice that weapons developed since 1948 and 1967 have totally changed the nature of a defensible frontier. Missiles and aircraft now make Damascus, Amman and Cairo as open to attack as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Israel needs an agreed eastern boundary, while the Palestinians deserve a reasonable measure of autonomy and self-determination.

Since 1967 the inhabitants of the occupied territories have been deprived of normal human rights in ways which it is hard to imagine when one lives in Britain. It is, I suggest, in the interest of all the neighbouring Arab states, as well as in the interest of the superpowers and the European Community, that those human rights be restored before worse befalls.

It is in the interests of Israel to cease coercing an unwilling Palestinian population, if it wishes to remain a democracy within its own proper boundaries. Territory will have to be ceded in return for recognition. I think that we all accept that, and we know perfectly well that it has already occurred in Sinai. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I question why it is so often assumed that Jordan must be brought in as a guarantor of stability among the Palestinians. True, it is the nearest neighbour. However, are there not other Arab states with vastly greater resources and populations?

The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, properly reminded us of the irreconcilables in the situation. He indicated that the outlook may be quite gloomy. However, I was surprised to learn while I was in Israel that there exist within that state and the occupied territories at least 50 distinct peace movements and organisations. Perhaps that appears less remarkable when one considers the major divisions—religious, cultural, theological and so on—that exist within Judaism and Zionism on the one hand and within Christianity and Islam on the other, all inside the borders of the former Palestinian mandate.

I had the privilege of meeting members of three of those many groups. It was a delight to visit the hamlet of Neve Shalom—The Oasis of Peace—between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. There Jews, Moslems and Christians live together co-operatively and run their own primary schools. They follow their own traditions and teach respect fo those of others. They organise courses and conferences for young Jews and Arabs who might otherwise never meet. Last year they held a rally for about 20,000 of their graduates.

Oz ve Shalom, which means strength and peace, is a movement within orthodox religious Judaism. It is non-violent and seeks to persuade all it can reach of the necessity for serious negotiations. The mere existence of that group is important because it shows the whole world that the Gush Emunim, or block of the faithful, are not the sole representatives of orthodoxy. The settlers within the territories have no monopoly and could perhaps ponder over the session of Yamit in Sinai.

Among the Christian Arabs in Galilee, some of your Lordships may have heard of Father Elias Chacour, who is now widely known as a speaker and author. I visited his parish of Ybillin, not far from Acre. Although he was abroad, I met his fellow-workers and saw some of the schools, libraries and community centres which they have developed. By such patient work they build up the morale and self-respect of their people and help them to play a full part within a reconciled country.

I conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage contacts, both official and unofficial, with those who work for peace. I am delighted to see the Minister nod. I believe that it is their policy to be in touch with so-called dissidents—those who work for human rights and the implementation of the Helsinki agreements—in the USSR and Eastern Europe. I suggest that there is a close parallel there with the peace movements of Israel, of the Left Bank of the River Jordan and perchance of the Gaza Strip.

4.25 p.m.

Lord Weidenfeld

My Lords, at twelve o'clock noon a week ago I found myself at Clock Square in Ramalla in the West Bank. Flanked by an Israeli military patrol and shielded by sharpshooters on the roof, we stood by expectantly, for noontime usually spells trouble. Youths tend to come out of recently reopened schools and out of alleyways, quite often in an ugly mood. It so happened that last Wednesday and indeed all last week it was calm there. One could almost say, "All quiet on the West Bank". However, just as in Erich Maria Remarque's historic novel, even that laconic phrase conceals horror, pain and suffering experienced on both sides that very day.

Of course the reality on the ground is often somewhat different from the media-radiated image. Unrest ebbs and flows. However, there is also widespread non-compliance with the directives of the Shabba, the new, young Arab leadership. Over 70 per cent. of the Palestinian Arab workforce that crossed the state line before the troubles still works or has resumed work in Israel. More Palestinian civil government employees and policemen return every day to their jobs and thus defy, at their peril, the threats of the Intifada's organisation. It is perhaps significant, as Defence Minister Rabin explained to me, that 50 per cent. of all petrol bombs or molotov cocktails are used by Arabs against Arabs, on those who fail to comply with the directives.

As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has said, the outlook for peace is gloomy. It is one of stagnation at best. However, paradoxically the long-term perspective looks better as new factors come into play. Secretary Shultz's trip was clearly aimed more at preventing a breakdown rather than achieving a breakthrough. The immediate portents are not encouraging. The Arab summit in Algiers will certainly not lift sinking hopes for early negotiations. The PLO have formally declined the Shultz plan. The King of Jordan will not move without the PLO. The Syrians have rejected it, though perhaps less impolitely than before. The Russians have reacted positively to some components but have rejected others, leaving a wide and as yet unbridgeable gulf between their own and the American perceptions. The Egyptians have come closest to endorsement.

As for Israel, Shimon Peres has always sincerely, courageously and almost formally endorsed, the American plan for a conference. That brings us to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. I believe that his attitude requires clarification. It is not the first time that he has been misunderstood. It is my personal impression that although he may have set his mind against the Shultz scheme of an international conference and in favour of direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and her neighbours, he could shift his ground if the constellation were to change.

If the Soviets normalise relations with the state of Israel and agree to leave the parties to themselves without an imposed solution from the super-powers, and if a genuine gesture comes from the Arab side that is as clear and dramatic as Sadat's flight to Jerusalem, then the Likud movement, which is more plurastic and flexible than some people think, could be moved from outright hostility through benevolent scepticism to a pragmatic reappraisal of the concept of an international conference. In the absence of a major shift of ground on the part of the Arabs and the Russians, Shamir and the Likud will not move away from their insistence on bilateral negotiations.

I am somewhat mystified by the allusions made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, to the wider areas which Mr. Shamir referred to. I should be grateful for clarification. My noble friend Lord Kennet, who spoke in favour of self-determination, mentioned Jerusalem. I believe that the undivided city of Jerusalem, with 450,000 inhabitants, has a Jewish population of 300,000, which would probably vote for Israel.

What are the more positive long-range factors which argue for compromise? First, there is a realisation in Israel as well as in the Arab world that the arms race—the alternative to negotiation—is ruinously costly. We have the absurb spectacle of the super-powers and Europe bent on reducing their armoury while the scale, cost and deadly efficiency of armament in the Middle East is escalating beyond all reason. The range of ground-to-ground missiles acquired by Syria, the Saudis and Iraq recently expanded from 300 kilometres to 2,800 kilometres. Chemical warfare is looming ominously in the background. It is terrifying to think that by focusing on the reduction of chemical capability of the superpowers we are neglecting, ignoring and thereby almost legitimising the proliferation of chemical weaponry and its use in regional conflicts. The spectre of Iraq's chemical massacre of thousands of Kurds haunts the corridors of the Defence Ministry of Israel, where it is well known that Syria may have chemical warheads for her Russian-supplied missiles.

The fear of a new arms race that could lead to the bloodiest and most lethal war ever fought in the Middle East is certainly a factor that makes for compromise. In this respect it is interesting to note that a group of high-ranking retired generals and brigadiers of the Israeli Army has recently come out for a defence reassessment, downgrading the strategic importance of the West Bank.

The third factor is the prospect of an American-Russian detente and co-operation in the Middle East. Gorbachev's Russia is increasingly perceived as one that has a vested interest in peace in that region. The Gulf War, the growth of fundamentalism, with its spill-over effect on the Moslem parts of the Soviet Union and the retreat from Afghanistan are all considerations which might cause the Russians to lean on their clients, Syria and the PLO, to come to the negotiating table. Russian contacts with Israel, though still mainly scientific and cultural rather than political, are multiplying and there is every pointer towards diplomatic normalisation.

The Soviets know that there is no peace in the Middle East against or without Israel, and Russia's Arab friends have been forewarned that only as a valid interlocutor with Israel can Russia champion some of their causes. One of the most interesting passages in Secretary General Gorbachev's speeches at the summit was his appeal to break down the prejudices, the received ideas and the stereotypes through close personal contact and direct talks. I am sure that that remark was not lost on either Yasser Arafat or President Assad.

The key issue is when and with whom among the Palestinians Israel can negotiate. The rigid stance against recognition of the PLO still remains official policy for both Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir. But if the Palestinian leopard were to change his spots the situation would radically change. I once heard, years ago, the late Golda Meir answer that very question on what conditions she would parley with the PLO. She answered with a typically homespun parable: If my grandmother were suddenly to change her arms and legs into wheels she would cease to be my granny and become a motor car. If the PLO accepted Resolutions 242 and 338, abjured the use of violence and terror, and distanced itself from the covenant to destroy Israel, the vast majority of Israel's people and their supporters all over the world would endorse negotiations and seek accommodation and ultimate peace with a Palestinian leadership.

If this perspective of immediate stagnation and the prospect of flux and forward movement at the turn of the year is anywhere near correct it entails a vital challenge for Britain and Europe. Neither Britain nor Europe has the immediate political and material clout to push the litigants into the conference chamber, but they can render yeoman service in preparing the ground and using their influence. More specifically, I think it is a fact that the right honourable lady, the Prime Minister, has a unique position in the Middle East conflict. She is possibly the most even-handed leader on record who is not only friends with Egypt, Jordan and Israel, but who has also had the courage of her convictions and paid personal visits to both sides.

The British Government, in league with their European allies, should use the next few months to good purpose and advance the peace process by pursuing these four specific ends. First, to urge the Russians to establish normal relations with the state of Israel. Secondly, to urge the King of Jordan to reopen talks with the Palestinians for a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. Thirdly, to reassure the Palestinian leadership that recognition of Israel's right to exist will result in Israel's endorsement of far-reaching Palestinian self-expression in their political life. Fourthly, to induce the Israelis by a show of compassionate understanding of their traumatic sense of insecurity to believe that "Geneva" is not Munich and that peace is not only necessary but could be truly lasting and secure.

In conclusion, that brings me to an urgent plea as well as a challenge to Her Majesty's Government. What lurks beneath so much of the malaise and deep anxiety of ordinary people throughout the Middle East is not just the uncertainty about the future but indeed quite often mistrust and fear of peace itself. The other day, when asked whether the West Bank was not a terrible headache for the Israelis, a well known public figure replied: Better a headache than no head In that grim irony lies that gnawing doubt about the future.

Let us remember that in the middle of the last war, in fact in the winter of 1943, Jean Monnet unfolded his earliest plans for the European Economic Community. In the very week that he was outlining his plans the Germans were at the outer perimeter of Stalingrad, the first carcasses were piling up at Auschwitz and one of the bloodiest massacres of the Maquis occurred in the steep hills of the Massif. Those were far darker days for Europe than they are in the Middle East today.

I think that it is incumbent upon us to lay the groundwork for an economic, social, cultural and human rights plan for that region—copyright in Europe—bounded by what was the Greater Palestine of the British Mandate; a plan that would be a beacon of hope, a light at the end of four decades of darkness and a purpose for which to live, for which to fight—and for which to compromise.

4.35 p.m.

Lord Caradon

My Lords, I have listened with special interest to the speech which we have just heard. I am anxious to speak for only a very short time to my own prejudice and my own understanding.

When I was very young I went to Palestine. I went from Cambridge to Jerusalem. I spent 10 years or so in that country, and I think that I rode to every village in Palestine. I know the people—I know them better than they allow themselves to be known now. As a people they are generous, brave, and eager to play a useful role in their part of the world. I greatly respect them.

I wish that over the years my own Government had been more ready to give them the respect that they deserve and not listened only to a few loud voices but tried to understand and work with the wonderful people of the Palestinian hills.

I felt that in this debate I should make some special plea for the Palestinians and for the Middle East dispute not to be regarded as a situation which cannot be dealt with by normal means. I believe that the Palestinians deserve a much greater respect than they have so far achieved. I wish them well. I hope that they may emerge from the rivalries and disturbances of the present Middle East situation with a place of their own in which they can take pride and make the contribution of which I know they are capable.

I recall that at one time we made a British contribution—a much more effective one I may say than the American contribution. At that time I was representing this country in New York. We searched for some basis of agreement and future action which could win universal support. I do not forget the day we found it when, to my joy, as I looked round at those voting I saw that not only the Americans were voting with us but the Soviet Union too. It was a unanimous vote of the Security Council in favour of the resolution known as 242.

I do not think that any one of us wishes to go back on that undertaking. I believe it should be the basis from which we work in the new effort which must now be made to find a better way. I do not believe that the so-called Shultz formula can possibly be a success. Going back to the declarations we have made in the past, particularly at the time of Resolution 242, I think we could make a vital new contribution which—although perhaps not immediately—might bring about peace.

Let us go back and look at what we did in those previous years with a proper respect for the people of Palestine who have no need to be pawns of great powers elsewhere. They are a people who have a right to be heard and a right to live freely with some hope for the future. I believe that with greater respect for the Palestinian people whom I know and much respect, a new formula should be found on the basis of what we looked for and what we found before. Listening with great interest to what is being said this afternoon, I most strongly urge that a new formula be found that could give to the Palestinian people the right to live, not subordinated and cruelly overwhelmed, but free and secure.

4.42 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for initiating this interesting debate because he has supported me on many occasions when we have both spoken on similar subjects.

As your Lordships probably know, I have spent the greater part of my adult life in the Arab world, 35 years or so. I have a great many Arab friends, including many Palestinians. I am now one of the vice-presidents of an organisation called CAABU, which is the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. It follows therefore that I shall quite unashamedly present the Arab case. I say unashamedly because over the past six years or so during which I have been speaking on these subjects in your Lordships' House the balance of opinion on the whole has tended to favour Israel.

I have spoken on six or possibly seven previous occasions on the Middle East. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows very well, he and I have generally both spoken. On each occasion, pretty well all the speakers have been conscious of an atmosphere of sterility and frustration with no sign of any way forward. Several speakers have mentioned that today. I fear that that is the position with which we are now confronted, as I see it. In fact, we might almost regard ourselves as looking down on a whirlpool in which two corpses perpetually revolve.

Much has been said in this debate and in previous debates about the possibility of an international conference. It was very much to the fore in the early part of 1987; it was one of the cornerstones of the debate that I initiated on 8th April that year. Much has been said today about Mr. Shultz and his initiative. I do not wish in any way to denigrate or belittle this great man, but I feel very strongly—the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made this point with great clarity and all I can do is reinforce it—that the Shultz initiative is getting us nowhere. It is getting us nowhere because so far Shultz has spoken about Palestinians but never to them. He may have had some talk with what we might call quisling Palestinians now established in the state of Israel, but he has so far consistently failed to meet and talk with representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation or the Palestinian National Council. Until that impasse is resolved, I cannot see any progress being made.

The stumbling block seems to be the almost irreversible concept of the PLO as a terrorist organisation. I have spoken about this many times, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for repeating what I have said before. The PLO is a large umbrella organisation: it consists of some eight different groups and the control over these groups, exercised by Yasser Arafat, is somewhat loose. However, by no means all these groups are involved in terrorism; in fact, only a very few of them are. The largest group, Fatah, to which the PLO representative in London, Faisal Awaidha, belongs, is one of the more moderate. It may be argued—I have heard this advanced— that the extremist elements, those who are in favour of terrorism and so on, will influence the others. In the words of the Bible, one might describe it as, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump I can assure your Lordships that this is not so. Until people come to realise that the PLO is the one authoritative representative of the Palestinians and until we and the Americans can open up a meaningful dialogue with the Palestinians through the PLO, I am afraid that the peace efforts are largely doomed to fail.

It may be helpful at this stage if I give a few statistics to put the whole problem into perspective. There are altogether now some 1,500,000 Palestinians in the occupied areas, that is to say, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. There are also some 700,000 Palestinians living in Israeli territory and roughly 60,000 Israelis who are occupying 30 settlements. I think we must bear in mind that the regime in the occupied areas as a whole has been very harsh to the Palestinians. For example, Israel now controls no less than 95 per cent. of all the water resources of the country and 52 per cent. of the cultivable land. Restrictions on water are numerous and often applied with great severity. One of these is the imposition of a well-boring limit on the Palestinians, who are forbidden to drill wells to a greater depth than 30 metres, whereas the Israelis have access to the abundant deep level water, as is apparent from the swimming pools and so on found in many of their settlements. For many of the Palestinians, sad to say, water is very hard to come by.

The Palestinian farmers in the occupied areas face a number of restrictions. For example, they face restrictions on land usage, which is very strictly controlled, and on the planting of trees. They have taxes imposed on them which the Israelis do not have to pay. They are restricted in the sale of their produce.

Sad to say, human rights violations continue. I have, as it were, a trump card in my hand. It is information provided by a British visitor who has just returned—in fact I saw him last night—from the occupied areas. He told me that the stories we have heard of tortures, patients being dragged from their hospital beds to be beaten up, and so on, are all too true. He described one detention centre where there are 57 detainees held before trial in one room measuring five metres by eight metres. The wretched people inside this room are given no facilities for exercise. They have the most primitive sanitation, consisting of one pail emptied once a day. They have no access to lawyers. Medical facilities arc embryonic if not non-existent. That is the kind of thing that is going on. I do not wish to exaggerate. I am presenting facts which have been presented to me by an entirely objective Englishman who has returned from that area.

It is impossible to present all the facts in this very complex and difficult situation because, as many noble Lords know, the Israelis actively discourage media investigation. However, I hope that I have at least pointed out some of the very sad happenings that are continuing in these areas. I hope that perhaps I have presented a picture which in some way may shatter the pro-Israeli illusions of the public and indeed of certain Members of your Lordships' House.

4.53 p.m.

Lord Stewart of Fulham

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn may feel fully justified in having raised this subject before the House this evening. Indeed, in 1922 this House debated the Question whether Britain should accept the mandate for Palestine and decided by a vote of 60 votes to 29 that it would be better not to do so. Governments did not pursue that line of thought. It is idle now to bewail that. Here it is, and here we are, as well as other protagonists in the struggle.

I shall interpret "Middle East"—as most speakers have done—in the narrow sense to mean the Palestine problem. I fully recognise, as the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Kilbracken, have said, that a good many other problems can properly be said to be located in the Middle East. However, frankly, in a debate of two-and-a-half hours' duration, the Palestine problem is enough for one topic. I shall therefore confine myself to that.

Apart from any other consideration, it is a problem full of dangers for us. They may be as serious as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested, if we consider the possibility of the development of a nuclear programme by Israel. But as we are not in possession of accurate facts on which to base definite conclusions, I do not think that one can pursue that further, other than to notice that the danger is there and will not go away. It may get worse as time goes on.

What makes the problem still more dangerous is the apparently totally irreconcilable attitude of the two parties, with the Israelis on the one side and the Arab nations—and the Palestinians in particular—on the other. We have seen from what they say about each other and what they do to each other how irreconcilable the position apparently is. It is not surprising that my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow was led to a rather pessimistic conclusion. Quite frankly, I do not know that I can entirely disagree with him. However, I believe that there arc some things the British can attempt to do at this time. I do not know whether they will be successful. I think, however, there is a duty to attempt them, whether an optimistic or pessimistic view of the situation is the most justified one.

Where does this irreconcilability lie? On the one hand, there is the proposition that the state of Israel has a right to exist. But not everybody means the same thing by the words "the state of Israel". Does one mean the area on the map designated in 1947 by the partition decision of the United Nations; or the armistice lines decided in 1949 by the United Nations; or the position created after the war of 1967? According to whoever one talks to, one will get different definitions of "Israel" and what has a right to exist.

Against that, we are told that the Palestinian people have the right to nationhood. Here again, we find that some people conceive the Palestinians as capable of being, and entitled to be, a nation. That was the view certainly of my noble friend Lord Caradon whose very moving account of his acquaintance with the Palestinian people impressed us all. Others regard Palestinians as a kind of appendage of the Kingdom of Jordan or as a people who can live in some kind of semi-independent situation provided that it does not endanger the security of the state of Israel.

I see no immediate way of reconciling those attitudes. If one takes people with those various points of view and sits them at a table together, I do not see that one will get further with them. Irreconcilability is not merely a matter of argument. We have to allow for the fact that between the two sides now there is the fearful river of blood that has been shed on both sides over so many years. It is not blood shed only on the battlefield—which can in certain circumstances be forgiven—but the blood of old people, men, women and children, killed not only on the battlefield but in the streets and the villages by acts of terror and violence carried out without pity and without justification. These factors, added on both sides, make a well-nigh intractable situation.

Israel has now found that while one can win a war, and for the time being safeguard one's territory by occupying it, the process of occupation presents one every day with frightful choices. There is the choice between what it is necessary to do for security, and what humanity says ought to be done, or what humanity says ought to be regarded as forbidden. This situation continues all the time.

For that reason, we welcomed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who pointed out that there are people on both sides who are endeavouring to find a better way than this. They are unhappily few, but we are glad to notice that the Minister expressed a certain degree of sympathy for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Perhaps we shall hear a little more on that.

It is clearly impossible to expect the parties concerned to come together to reach agreement. There seems to be no possibility of that whatever. It is that that makes the case for an international conference of some kind. How many Israelis in prominent public positions are prepared to say that they will recognise the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people? Hardly any, my Lords; but if that view is expressed with the full weight of an international conference, what people cannot as a matter of pride surrender by themselves they may, without loss of dignity, be prepared to concede if they see that the whole weight of world opinion is on the other side. The same may be true similarly with leading members of the PLO. If one asks whether they are prepared to accept the right of the state of Israel to exist, one will not often receive an answer. But if behind that request were the weight of an international conference, one may get somewhere towards the possibility of an agreement.

As I see it, that is the purpose of an international conference: to draw the attention of both these irreconcilable parties to the fact that while this horrible game of being irreconcilable can be played for a time, they cannot go on playing it in face of the disapproval of more and more of the whole world.

I am thinking of an international conference that may begin with an European initiative. Europe has already given certain declarations that may be useful, in the way that the Venice declaration is useful. But to be effective such an international conference must in the end have behind it the full authority of the United Nations. That will mean persuading the Soviet Union to play a fuller part than apparently they are at present prepared to play. There seem to be some possibilities that the Soviet Union is prepared to come forward to take part with the United States and the other powers in reaching an agreed solution.

As my noble friend Lord Caradon pointed out, we nearly achieved that with Resolution 242 which carried the full authority of the United Nations behind it. Certain things happened between the establishment of Resolution 242 and the present time that might make Resolution 242 not fully up to date; but I believe it is the beginning of the argument and from there we might be able to find a workable solution that will be accepted by all sides.

A terrible thing about the whole problem is that one cannot talk about it without being reminded of how the same problems have recurred year after year. What one has said has often been proved wrong some years later; but I remember some years ago expressing sentiments not unlike these and being ridiculed and told that they were fit only for a Sunday school. That at least would be an improvement over what we have at present in the Middle East. It is possible that what I am suggesting is wildly optimistic and that there is no possibility of achieving peace along these lines; but I confess that I do not see any other. I am convinced that whether there is great hope or little, the duty to try is there. I hope that the Government will take the same view.

5.4 p.m.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has brought us back to an issue of great international concern at, as he indicated, a particularly sensitive and important moment. I am grateful to him for his constructive approach and for the careful and interesting interventions of other speakers from all corners of the House.

The Motion concentrates on one important conflict in the Middle East. Some would argue that it is the central conflict; that is to say, the conflict which exists between Israel and the Palestinians. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir said, there are other reasons why the region remains such a source of instability and a potential flashpoint for broader consultation. These include the bloody conflict between Iran and Iraq, the tensions in the Gulf and the continuing tragedy in Lebanon. The world will not know peace and stability as long as those conflicts remain unsolved. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I should like to concentrate the bulk of my remarks on the deeply troubling situation in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

Since last December, over 220 Palestinians and three Israelis have died. Well over 6,000 Palestinians have been taken into detention. These are shocking statistics. Even so, they are but one indication of the tensions, oppression and suffering which characterise events in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Everyone is affected: there can be few Palestinian families who have not had someone beaten, detained, deported, injured or even killed. But equally, there can be few Jewish families whose sons or daughters, fathers or brothers have not faced stone-throwing crowds. The personal grievances and bitterness are accumulating. Israel's international reputation is suffering. So is the peace process. Israel has a duty to maintain law and order in the occupied territories. But she must do so in accordance with international law and human rights standards.

Those laws and standards are all too frequently abused. I gave the figures just now. As well as the use of excessive violence, we deplore also the illegal deportations and collective punishments such as house demolitions and the closure of education establishments. The treatment of the A1 Haq workers described by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is a further example of the extremes to which the Israeli authorities have gone.

For peace to come a way must be found towards a negotiated settlement of the underlying dispute and for that there must be dialogue. The bridges between the communities need urgent repair, not further destruction. If the extremists have their way the violence will continue. Violence breeds violence. The status quo is unstable and cannot be sustained. Time is on no one's side. No man of compassion could stand back in contemplation of such suffering.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton—who I see is still here—asked me particularly about encouraging contacts with the 50 or so separate peace movements and organisations. I assure him that we shall remain in contact and continue to encourage the efforts of all those making a constructive contribution to the cause of peace.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in talking about Israel's policy, described the difficulties with two parties involved in one country at the same time. It is essential for both halves of the Israeli Government to realise that the status quo offers no basis for Israel's future as a free democratic Jewish state. Only imaginative and courageous decisions in favour of negotiations and the principle of trading land for peace offer a way forward to a just, durable peace. We hope that in the next elections due in November the Israeli people will choose that path rather than move further towards extremism.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, indicated that Britain has a particular historical interest in respect of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unhappily some on both sides of the dispute choose to dwell on what they consider to be the shortcomings of the British policy over the past 70 years. At least we can be satisfied that equal criticism from the two sides illustrates the balance that we have always tried to maintain in our policy.

We certainly do not shrink from this traditional close interest in the affairs of the region. We must recognise that we are dealing now with the constantly changing political realities of the present day. The Government arc fully aware of the need to act in response to the dangerous situation in the occupied territories which I have described. But we must have no illusions about the influence we can bring to bear. Neither we nor anyone else can impose solutions on the parties or set out to dictate the way forward.

The point then arises of what contributions we can make. The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Stewart of Fulham, gave their views. First, we and our European partners will maintain the pressure on the Israeli Government to end their abuses of human rights in the occupied territories. We shall lose no opportunity to urge them to replace oppression with dialogue and negotiation.

The Twelve continue to play an important role in urging the parties to recognise each other's legitimate rights. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, specifically asked about the role of the European Community. We shall consider any further specific proposals for further EC action. But clearly the impetus remains with Secretary Shultz's initiative, and I shall deal with that aspect later. The US engagement is a vital element and Mr. Shultz has our full support. Any other initiative at this time would stand little chance of success, and to some extent risks are counter-productive.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised in part the point about the proposal for an EC administration in the occupied territories. We see many difficulties in the idea as described so far. They are both political, in the drafting of any mandate, and practical in its implementation. Would there be stomach throughout the Community for exposing our young men to the opposition and violence that they would certainly face? However, that said, we should be prepared to study in detail any formal proposal submitted in European political co-operation.

The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Weidenfeld and Lord Stewart of Fulham, referred to the need to strive to encourage co-operation, particularly the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Israel. We welcome the possibility of any high level Soviet-Israeli contact. There are many important issues to be discussed: bilateral relations, Soviet Jewry and the peace process. I hope that the continuing contacts can lead to new openings in these key areas. The noble Lord has put his finger on an important point.

On the humanitarian level we support the sterling work of the relief agencies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We agree with the United Nations Secretary General when he calls for an expansion of their role to meet the changing needs of the expanding refugee population. In addition, we have recently given £24,000 of emergency aid for families seriously affected by the unrest. The EC has contributed £450,000 of emergency aid since December 1987. We try to encourage the economic development of the region. We aim to give £1 million of bilateral aid to the occupied territories, plus our share of the European Community aid. In 1987 that was about £2 million. Together with the European Commission we have maintained pressure on the Israelis for early implementation of the measures which will allow preferential access to the European Community market for Palestinian producers. We are glad to note the assurances recently given by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, in that regard and we trust that those assurances will soon be fulfilled.

Important though those matters are, they cannot resolve the underlying problems. Economic palliatives or relief handouts cannot be expected to satisfy a people seeking their legitimate rights. Israel's right to secure existence will not be achieved at the point of a gun or through the demolition of houses. The parties must move on towards a negotiated settlement of their conflict. We look to the political leadership in Israel to come forward with constructive, forward-looking policies which can lay the foundations for a proper and peaceful relationship between the peoples of the region. We look to the leaders of the uprising—what is now universally known as the intifada, a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld—to ask themselves how they can move from stone-throwing towards political progress.

But, as I have already explained, only the parties directly concerned can tackle the main issues. The United Kingdom, the Twelve, the United States and the USSR can signpost the way. We can urge courses of action but we cannot actually take the steps on the road to peace. Any just and durable peace requires sacrifice and compromise on both sides, a willingness to give up some long-cherished but unattainable objectives. There can be neither historical Palestine nor Eretz Israel, except at the price of perpetual conflict. Israelis and Palestinians need to recognise that maximalist positions are outdated and that they are fated to live alongside each other.

From this Dispatch Box I have repeated many times what we are convinced must be the basis of any solution: recognition of the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence, together with the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. I was also struck by the moving words of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, whose experience in international affairs is well known to us all. I am pleased to have this opportunity to salute the great achievements of the noble Lord in the drafting of United Nations Security Resolution 242. I assure him that our support for the current US peace initiative is based on its adherence to one of the central principles of that resolution; the exchange of land for peace.

The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has heard me say previously that we do not regard the PLO as a terrorist organisation, but several of its component organisations have deplorable terrorist records. The PLO enjoys wide support in the occupied territories and among Palestinians elsewhere. However, we do not accept its claim to be the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. It lacks any such mandate. The PLO can and should put itself in a position to play an important part in the peace process. The people it claims to represent desperately need peace and justice rather than violence and confrontation. The PLO cannot expect to play that constructive role until it renounces violence, accepts UN Security Resolutions 242 and 338 and recognises Israel's right to exist.

The terms of a settlement are for the parties to agree. How should they do that? We, like my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, believe that an international conference under United Nations auspices can provide an effective framework for the necessary negotiations. But to succeed, such a conference cannot have the power to impose solutions nor to veto agreements reached by the parties. Such a conference will provide the opportunity for a just and lasting peace settlement. It will not be a trap; no man of good will need fear it.

As regards the question of procedure, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Reay in his reference to the suggestion that the five permanent members of the Security Council should be involved, I must say that the structure and terms of reference of the conference are complex issues. They touch on the substance of the dispute and it is for the parties to work out mutually acceptable arrangements. It will be wrong for the United Kingdom or any other party to dictate terms from outside.

As today's debate has made clear, there is common praise and support for the current effort of the United States Government to advance the cause of peace on this basis. In particular, we salute the work of Mr. Shultz as he comes towards the end of his latest shuttle mission in the region. We look forward to hearing the results of that mission. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be meeting Mr. Shultz in the course of the North Atlantic council meeting in Madrid later this week.

A number of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Weidenfeld, Lord Thomas and others, appeared to be writing off Mr. Shultz's continuing efforts prematurely or prejudging the outcome of the Algiers summit. I believe that we should avoid these traps and be careful not to offer self-fulfilling prophecies of doom. We must keep faith with those working so hard—and hard it is—for the cause of peace. We should show the same stamina as Mr. Shultz in building on the process already achieved and in bringing the countries of the region to face up to current political realities.

Perhaps I can say to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, that recently Mr. Shultz met two members of the Palestinian National Council in Washington, Professors Edward Salid and Abu Lughod. I trust I have the pronunciation right. He also offered to meet Palestinians in Arab East Jerusalem during his earlier shuttle mission. On that occasion the Palestinians stayed away.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill. Lord Kennet, and Lord Weidenfeld subsequently for drawing attention to the new dangers posed by missile and nuclear technology and the military implications. Nevertheless, the development of the military might of both sides underlines a fundamental point; namely, that Israel cannot guarantee her security by weapons and the control of territory. More than ever Israel needs peace with her neighbours.

I come to the point in all this that of course no realistic peace plan can deliver anyone's ideal package. I am sure however that your Lordships will join me in urging both the Israeli Government and people, as they prepare for their next elections, and the Arab world, as their leaders meet in Algiers, to turn away from conflict and confrontation. They should not spurn the efforts of the international community to help them achieve peace.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, referred to the conflict involving the Kurds and that in Iran and Iraq—the conflict in the Gulf. We deplore the continuation of this terrible conflict now in its eighth year. We are deeply saddened by the enormous loss of life and suffering which it has brought to the people of Iran and Iraq. We deplore indiscriminate attacks on civilian centres of population and, as the noble Lord would have me do, we condemn the use of chemical weapons by either party. However, our position is one of strict neutrality. We call on both sides to abandon the conflict and to negotiate for a peaceful solution. Britain has played a leading role in securing the unanimous adoption of the mandatory Security Council Resolution 598 which sets internationally-accepted terms for a settlement.

It is clearly right that we in the international community should devote much care and attention to these difficult areas of conflict. Any efforts to resolve them face serious obstacles. Indeed, some would argue that the obstacles are insurmountable but the very process of negotiation and the attempts to bring the conflicting parties together can help to stem what otherwise might become a steady drift towards greater extremism. Whatever the obstacles, there can be no alternative to our current steady and balanced efforts to help bring conciliation, and, in time, peace and stability to this troubled region. I am grateful to your Lordships for your support in this important endeavour.

5.24 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we have had a constructive and thoughtful debate on this urgent subject and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I felt that the general mood has been one of caution and I believe that that is right and proper. However, alongside that mood of caution one also sensed that the majority of speakers felt that Her Majesty's Government should do all that was possible to help the convening of an international conference.

I am sure that the House will allow me to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham for winding up the debate on this side. We are always glad to hear my noble friend not only because of his great experience but because of the clarity of his speeches; I am personally indebted to him. We are grateful to the Minister of State for responding and for explaining government policy to us and also, most important of all, for his commitment on behalf of the Government to explore every possible channel in bringing pressure to hear for the convening of a conference in support of Mr. George Shultz. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.