Arab—Israeli Dispute (Hansard, 25 January 1989)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, Mr. Shamir has been invited to visit Britain. We look forward to discussing with him how we can help achieve a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, may we be sure that Ministers who meet Mr. Shamir will impress upon him that there is no chance of peace unless both sides renounce terrorism? Does the noble Lord recall that last year, as Prime Minister, Mr. Shamir was responsible for the assassination in Tunis of Mr. Arafat's deputy and of two other PLO leaders in Cyprus, and also for the killing or wounding of thousands of people in occupied Palestine, including hundreds of children?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, it has been the policy of this Government to deplore terrorist acts of whatever kind wherever they occur, and we shall continue to do so.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the Minister aware that we know and respect the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as a member of the Arab lobby in this House, and that we therefore understand his question? Is the Minister further aware, and is he prepared to comment on the fact that Mr. Shamir—whatever Israel's faults—is justified in doubting that the words and platitudes of Mr. Arafat are enough to quell the memory of the atrocities and appalling behaviour of the PLO towards the Jews over the past 10 years?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the important point to bear in mind is that there has been a change in the stance of the PLO. We welcome Mr. Arafat's renunciation of terrorism and we trust that the PLO will live up to his commitment.

§ Lord Thomas of Gwydir
My Lords, further to my noble friend the Minister's remarks about there being a change of stance, is he aware that the Palestinian National Covenant, which unequivocally aims at the total destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state in the pre-1947 territories of Palestine, is still the accepted covenant of the PLO and is unamended? Is he further aware that Article 33 of the covenant states that there can be no 694 amendment unless at least two-thirds of the national congress of the PLO meeting in special session vote for it? Is the Minister aware of any indication having been given during the discussions that have recently taken place with Yassir Arafat that there is likely to be a special congress of the PLO with a view to seeking any amendment of that covenant?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am not aware of any special congress. I think that it is important that we should continue to strive to help in the search for a peace solution. That is what we have been looking for for some time. It was in that light that we welcomed Mr. Arafat's new commitment to such a solution, which was recently reiterated at a meeting with my honourable friend the Minister of State. That is why we believe that an international conference remains the most suitable framework for the necessary negotiations between the parties directly concerned.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at this crucial time we would welcome talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Israel at the highest level? Can he say whether any plans exist to facilitate such talks and whether there are any plans, for example, for Mr. Waldegrave to visit Israel? Further, may we assume that Her Majesty's Government will have talks on the issue with the new Administration in the United States?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, of course it is important to keep up the momentum of our bilateral relations. That will be achieved when Mr. Shamir comes here and may be achieved before then if visits take place in the other direction. So far as concerns the United States, yes, it is important that its engagement is wholehearted and we welcome the United States—PLO dialogue. We look forward to early contacts with the new US Administration on those matters.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, now that the United States has at last adopted an even-handed policy towards the Arab—Israel wars and disputes, and now that Israel is at last left alone with the necessity of learning how to live according to the usual laws of civilised international relations, would the Government agree that the role of gadfly might now be abandoned by all Members of this House and that the role of dove and negotiator would be a more suitable one in future?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, we continue to play our full part in bringing both sides in the dispute to understand the merits of the suggested conference. We shall continue to do all that we can to bring that about.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us in all parts of the House will always honour and respect those British soldiers who were slain and hanged in the Middle East by Jewish terrorists? We quite rightly condemn the occupation of lands by the Soviet Union and other countries and the Government have also condemned the occupation of that part of Palestine which belongs to 695 the Palestinians. Will the Government now take it upon themselves to keep bringing that to the attention of the United Nations so that the Palestinians can have back the lands which the Balfour Declaration said and the United Nations agreed were theirs?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, it is all very well to look to the past and it is important that we do so from time to time. However, it is also important that we direct our energies toward a policy that will provide a satisfactory future and that is what we propose to do.

§ Lord Bottomley
My Lords, is it not a fact that since its creation Israel has never had security? There have been five unprovoked attacks upon Israel and continuing violence and terrorism against innocent women and children. I hope that when Mr. Shamir arrives those facts will be acknowledged and that we shall talk with him in the knowledge that after all he represents the only democratic country in the Middle East.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, we shall put over whatever points are necessary in order to try to bring about the kind of resolution that we seek. We have to speak frankly with all those concerned and shall continue to do so. I am sure that the point made by the noble Lord will not in any way be lost.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, we all welcome the Government's efforts to find a peaceful solution in the Middle East, but does not the Minister feel that the Government are exerting pressure in the wrong way by pressurising Israel to accept a conference on the Middle East? The only object of that conference would be to establish a heavily armed Palestinian state in the middle of what is now Israel, with its capital in Jerusalem. Would that not fatally compromise the independence of Israel and therefore make it quite impossible for Israel to accept such a conference? Do not the Government feel that it would be much better to try to persuade Mr. Arafat to accept what is now on offer; namely, autonomy on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord's question pointed up the importance of the international conference in respect of this issue. I do not think it is possible to find a solution in a matter of minutes across the Floor of the House. It is a complicated matter and that is why we need to have the international conference to which reference has been made.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, is it not a fact that the real trouble is that bodies become lumbered with old, written commitments in which at one time they firmly believed but which they later find are an encumbrance and would like to dispose of? Is that not Mr. Arafat's trouble, as indeed is the similar commitment of the Labour Party to socialism?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I do not think I shall comment on the noble Viscount's last point. I can say 696 that there are two basic principles for settlement which have been long advocated. One is the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence; the other is the Palestinians' right to self-determination.