Middle East

HL Deb 17 December 2001 vol 630 cc103-28

8.54 p.m.

The Earl of Sandwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to help achieve peace in the Middle East.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it seems appropriate that we should now focus on a related area of the world to which we owe much and yet whose problems have defeated our statesmen for more than half a century. Every time we discuss the Middle East we are clutching at straws. The situation is now much more serious. We have had not only the events of 11th September but an alarming escalation of violence not only by terrorists and settlers but by those who claim to offer leadership. I am grateful to the many distinguished noble Lords who have agreed to take part, and we all look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Kilclooney.

The question is intended to encourage the Government to sharpen their policies towards Israel-Palestine, in particular, in the wider context of anti-terrorism. We rightly condemn terrorists, whether they are suicide bombers or anyone else. Those who inspire terror are not always men in masks behind the scenes. They can be helicopter pilots or tank commanders. The Israeli army has acquired a reputation for ruthless efficiency. But it was a little different at the Lutheran orphanage in Beit Jala last August when 50 children and teachers watched a tank draw up. The soldiers shut them all in one room, took over the building and started firing at Palestinians from the church roof, tearing out new floor tiles and flinging them into the street. One said, "If the kids play outside we will shoot them". That happened because someone in the illegal settlement of Gilo had convinced himself that the whole of Jerusalem was under attack.

There have been many less visible incidents recently in the so-called defence of settlements—a doctrine of security that is highly developed in Israel and is now a convenient echo of international anti-terrorism. I have personal experience of young Israeli soldiers at checkpoints and road blocks which is contrary to the international image. Most are inexperienced, uneducated and trained to cause the maximum harassment, delay and misery.

I am not denying that those qualities may also apply to Palestinian Authority soldiers. I am not qualified to judge them, as fortunately they did not search me. The weaknesses of the PA are well known from the tragic encounters of the past few weeks. The PA is a sitting target for General Sharon, which Palestinians know all too well. They cannot control Hamas; they are fragmented and lack resources.

Dr Haider Abdel Shafi, the respected veteran Palestinian leader, told me in September that he was embarrassed to ask his friends to do things that Palestinians could not do. In other words, there is a frank admission that Palestine has had to rely on so much help from abroad—from Jordan, Egypt and the EU—to build institutions such as the police, air strips and ports, only to see them destroyed by Israel. Unless Arab states and Europe take more positive action to help them to return to the negotiating table, they will remain the victims.

Your Lordships will not expect me to offer a quick fix to the Middle East crisis. In focusing more on Israel, I suggest that our Government have a duty to look beyond today's violence and push the United States more firmly and urgently towards an agreement.

To those who doubt that the UK can do that, I offer three reasons. First, we have a historic responsibility to Palestinians, partly based on our eastern Christian experience, from the crusades to colonial rule. St George, for example, is much more than a patriotic symbol. He is recognised and revered by Muslim Arabs alongside Christians near his shrine near Bethlehem, which is a reminder of the possibility and the actuality of greater religious tolerance. No one needs reminding that under the Balfour Declaration we have powerful obligations to Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, as well as to the Jewish community.

The second reason is our close friendship with the US, which has been much strengthened by the recent tragedies. I do not underestimate the ties that bind the US and Israel. The Jewish contribution to both our societies is inestimable. Israel today includes many different immigrant communities, but US influence remains strongest. When it is in a mood of isolation, such as its mood today, it is to the US that Israel looks for investment, political and logistical support

Thirdly, we owe it to our own considerable Jewish and Muslim minorities. The latter have been more in the news, but over the years we have built up a close partnership with Israel based on cultural and commercial ties. We welcomed refugees in the East End long before Hitler's persecution and the Holocaust that followed. We have benefited from Jewish scientific knowledge, music and literature. We have a strong Jewish presence in the City and other financial centres and many of our British families belong equally to Israel and travel there regularly. The UK is now Israel's fifth largest export market and its third largest source of imports. With its total trade approaching £3 billion, Israel has been designated by the DTI as a Middle East target market. We know that that market includes the occupied Palestinian territories.

It follows from all that that we have a close association with Israel and with Palestine. The plight of the Palestinians is well known and I have referred to it in previous debates, but we easily forget that Israel too is a victim as well as an oppressor. Its security is a neglected area of the peace process. The international community, engaged in anti-terrorism, has to provide the necessary guarantees to release Israel from its aggressive self-defence. That is where new thinking is needed in the Foreign Office.

That may explain why so many of our Jewish families and friends and many Members of this House feel so powerless. In some cases, they feel that it is not their concern. It is a problem for Israelis and Zionists, but not Jews. Seen from Tel Aviv, the Palestinians who live only kilometres away sometimes belong to another world. The large minority in Israel—perhaps 50 per cent or more; who knows?—who genuinely want peace and who in many cases enjoy liberal personal lifestyles, including Labour Members of the Knesset, are impotent against the fragility of their own coalition and the armour of the Sharon Government.

Another reason for helplessness is now neatly described in the word "terrorism". It is said that there cannot be peace or progress while there is terrorism. We have debated that many times. That explains the need for Israel's self-defence, although hardly the use of tanks and shells against innocent civilians. However, it should not become an excuse for our inaction. Even our Government are mouthing the anti-terrorism jargon that, since the death of Mr Ze'evi, has become the Israeli Cabinet's life support machine. The Government must not regard it as a reason, as seems to be the case at the moment, for giving up on the peace process before Christmas, in the manner of President Bush. I was glad to see that the Foreign Office has a new initiative in Lebanon and has made contacts with Hezbollah independently of the United States.

Another reason for delay is that we have a thriving trade partnership with Israel, but that can work both ways. Included in the UK's imports are goods produced by Palestinians in the occupied territories, but for how long? Is it not a basic human right for Palestinians to be recognised as the source of those goods?

The recent EU declaration did not bring us much nearer. Unless we in Europe and the United States can find new reasons to bring the parties together, the conflict will go on and there will never be a settlement.

Finally, I have given the Government notice of the following questions, which I shall summarise. How can Israel be dissuaded from acts of oppression against Palestinian civilians? Will the Government at least urge the United States to arrange an early meeting of the Mitchell committee? Is the Minister aware of the rapid population increase in the settlements? Will the Government urge the United States and Israel not only to freeze settlements but to accept that there are other means of guaranteeing the country's security? Does the Minister agree that Jerusalem should be a central issue in any peace negotiations? Lastly, can he please explain why the United Kingdom refused to invoke the rules of origin and the human rights clauses in the EU-Israel association agreement at the ministerial meeting in Brussels on 20th November?

9.4 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I welcome the fact that we are debating this issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I am one of those who deeply cares what happens to Israel and the Palestinians. I have spoken about the issue before. Everybody who participates in the debate has a duty to ask how best they can help to advance the cause of peace between those peoples.

It is a two-way process. Each party has to be fully committed to an enduring peace. It is no good just talking about it. It has to be reflected in what we do and say about the issue. One will not do without the other.

It is no good dreaming, as some do, that Israel did not exist. I have news for those people: they had better get used to it. There may be genuine differences of opinion, but there is none in Israel about the country's right to exist.

One may ask why Arab children are fed with hate about Israeli Jews. Why are the speeches of so many Arab leaders marred with that commodity? Why is so little said by both sides about Ehud Barak's proposals to end the international stalemate and the intifada? Why is there no possibility today of seriously arguing about peace?

Surely there was a basis for discussing a shared Jerusalem, a Palestinian state and 95 per cent of the West Bank for the Palestinians. Why was the process terminated so abruptly, not by the Jews, but by the Palestinians? I think that there was a lack of leadership. It was not an intransigent Israel that blew up the twin towers or blasted the Pentagon.

The present situation calls for more dialogue before the curtain of peace comes down for the last time. It cannot go like this for ever. We have no more time. So little time is left. One hopes and prays that common sense will prevail; that Sharon and Arafat will sit down at a table and talk. At present, there is no such possibility. Why not? The stakes are high for Arafat, the Palestinians that he leads and Israel. I pray that there will be a breakthrough and I pray for peace.

9.8 p.m.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar

My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate.

I agree with a good deal of what said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but he has accepted the myth surrounding what happened at Camp David. If the noble Lord reads Robert Malley, who was President Clinton's assistant at Camp David, in the International Herald Tribune or the New York Review of Books, he will find that there was no great offer. Nothing was on the table. Whatever was suggested was totally unacceptable. Nothing was said about water and what was offered on Jerusalem was unacceptable. Although American newspaper columnists are dutifully spiking Israeli propaganda, it is all untrue.

That said, Barak went further than any Israeli had done before and the Palestinians did not handle it at all well. Nor did the Americans.

The Palestinian children are filled with hatred, as the noble Lord said, because they are suffering under a brutal, racist and illegal occupation. The Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against that occupation. In doing so, they have committed some unspeakable atrocities that nobody could dream of defending. Nevertheless, their violence is of a different order from that of the occupying power, whose violence is out of order altogether. The Israelis should not he occupying the places they are. They are still building illegal roads and settlements. As the foremost Israeli commentator has said, they have only one objective—to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.

If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, saw the conditions under which Palestinians are living and the dreadful oppression and discrimination that they are suffering, he would not be at all surprised by the hatred. He would only be surprised that there are not more terrorist atrocities than there are. I assure the noble Lord that the conditions are appalling.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Yes.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

The Americans, who purport to be the judges in this matter, are entirely one side. They purport to be sitting on the Bench but they ought to be in the dock. They have been supporting, subsidising and arming that illegal occupation for 20 years. The Americans have never put forward impartial proposals. They are entirely on one side, because of the innate corruption of American politics.

The Americans treat Mr Sharon as a benevolent, serious statesman, and as a respectable politician who is committed to the peace process. He has never been anything of the sort. He has always been against the peace process. He is a man of blood and crimes. The Americans made the same mistake in 1982. They gave Sharon a free hand then and the green light to invade Lebanon. Many more innocent civilians lost their lives in the bombing of Beirut than were killed on September 11th—quite apart from the massacres at Sabra and Chatila. For the Americans to let Sharon do what he wants is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.

It is vitally important, as the noble Earl said, that Britain and Europe must differ and show their dissent from America. They are more concerned with justice rather than with appeasing the Israeli lobby in the United States—which is what has been keeping the conflict going for the past 15 to 20 years. The corruption of American politics is at fault. It is vital that the Palestinians should not be the only people who are denied freedom and self-determination, and they should be treated like other people—not only for their good but for that of the coalition.

9.13 p.m.

Lord Dahrendorf

My Lords, there are times when big problems become so intractable that it is almost impossible to think of a realistic solution. At this time the Middle East is a case in point. In such circumstances there are few ways to avoid despair. One is hoping against hope. Some of my friends in the region say that the Middle East is always capable of surprises. One approach is to leave the big picture on one side and look for small signs of hope that may become building blocks for a better future.

I have in mind, for example, signs that members of the different communities can live and work together in peace, and above all that examples are set in Israel that could be harbingers of a tolerant plural society. In that context, I should like to mention the New Israel Fund, which is an organisation that supports initiatives designed to promote, justice, tolerance, and mutual respect between all the groups that make up Israeli society". In doing so, I declare an interest in that my wife chairs the UK board of the New Israel Fund.

Examples of the fund's work are many and often very moving. There is a food co-operative for Jewish and Arab residents of low-income neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, described by one of its Arab members as "a model for co-existence". There is a Bookmobile for Bedouin children cut off from educational material. There is support for the Personal Status Coalition, which campaigns for laws granting civil rights to members—above all women—of both Jewish and Muslim communities. There is also education of members of all communities about their housing rights. The list of small but important projects is long.

Fortunately, the New Israel Fund is not alone in promoting such ventures; there are others. For example, the organisation called Physicians for Human Rights has found volunteers to provide medical care for deprived communities on the West Bank. It has also looked after prisoners in detention. Its chairman has said: Peace is impossible as long as cancer patients needing chemotherapy are prevented from entering Israel via Erez Crossing in order to undergo outpatient treatment". When one talks about government action in the Middle East, the first objective that comes to mind is a sustainable end to terrorism and armed conflict. The next stage, whenever it is reached, will be for the countries of the region to engage in major projects of common benefit, such as those of the water economy long promoted by Shimon Peres of Israel and Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan. Beyond that, however, it is the hundreds of small initiatives in what may one day be a true civil society that deserve moral and financial support. Again to quote the chairman of Physicians for Human Rights, Dr. Ilan Gal, such work, brings hope: a belief that, despite everything, things could be different". I wish to echo his thanks to all those working to make that come true.

9.17 p.m.

Lord Kilclooney

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House. I should like immediately to express my appreciation to your Lordships for the way in which I have been received and made to feel at home, and to underline my thanks to the staff for they way in which they have assisted me in the past few weeks, since I arrived in this place.

Unbelievably, this is my 11th maiden speech. My first one was in 1965, in the Northern Ireland House of Commons. In the intervening 35 or so years, I have spoken in all six Northern Ireland institutions, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I currently represent a Northern Ireland constituency. I have also made two maiden speeches in Strasbourg, at the European Parliament and at the Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have also made a maiden speech at the Western European Union Assembly, as I have of course done in another place. Indeed, on the latter occasion, I spoke at 8.00 a.m. in Strasbourg, at 2.30 p.m. at Stormont, and I then made my maiden speech in the other place, at 8 p.m. I survived that exercise, but I have not sought to repeat it.

The Middle East has always fascinated me. I suppose that I first came across the subject when I was a child at Sunday school. At the back of the Bible, we had all those wonderful maps of Syria, Jerusalem, Egypt, Israel, the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, among others. They introduced me not only to religion but to politics and geography, all of which probably come together especially for me as an Ulsterman.

My fascination with the subject continued. One day more than 40 years ago, as a university student in applied science and technology, I read that there was a competition about how to solve the problems of the Middle East. I entered the competition—which was chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh and the late King Hussein of Jordan—and to my amazement I was one of the 20 United Kingdom students chosen as winners. Although we spent a wonderful month in Jordan as guests of King Hussein, I am sorry to say that the advice that I gave in my essay was not followed. Consequently, 40 years on, we still have an increasing problem in the Middle East.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not simply a Jewish-Muslim one; after all, 10 per cent of Palestinians are Christian, most of whom are Orthodox although some are Latin and some are Lutheran. I have visited Christian homes which have been shelled by the Israelis—the homes of innocent Christians, thrown out of their houses because they were Palestinians not because they were Christians.

Some recommendations have to be made in the short time available. One is, of course, that Arafat must stop the terrorism. I am glad that he made such a strong speech at the weekend. What a disappointment that today the Israelis replied by yet again assassinating a Palestinian. Israel must stop the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories. Imagine 200 or 300 Orangemen planted in the centre of Dublin. That would be a provocation, but there are 400 or 500 Jews planted in the city of Hebron with 120,000 Arabs. That is a provocation. The settlement provocation must be brought to an end. Israel must stop the shoot to kill policy of people who have not been found guilty in law. Syria must accept United Nations border designations in northern Israel; otherwise, there is an excuse for Hezbollah terrorism to continue.

Palestinians should drop the demand for 4 million refugees to return to Israel as their return would destabilise Israel. It is an unrealistic proposal. Israel should publicly confirm its support for a Palestinian state, as the United States and the United Kingdom have done recently. The Palestinian Authority should underline its recognition of and support for the integrity and sovereignty of Israel and, of course, Jerusalem will have to be shared as a capital of both states.

Today there is great economic decline in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. In Jerusalem the restaurants are empty. In Bethlehem tourism is dead. In the Palestinian territories there is 40 per cent unemployment. All of that breeds more extremism on both sides. The United Kingdom must be even-handed and not take the attitude of the United States which supports only Sharon. That in itself offends other Arab nations and could bring about a wider conflict.

I conclude by saying that the United Kingdom must pursue a policy for the Middle East which brings about dialogue and talks. That must be done through the European Union so that both sides are brought together, but the talks must not—I say this from my experience in Northern Ireland—include active terrorists. No one can he required to settle at the end of a terrorist gun. Dialogue will be painful for both sides, but it is greater to suffer pain than for the innocents—Jews, Christians and Muslims—to continue to be killed.

9.22 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester

My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and to congratulate him on his excellent, highly appropriate and focused 11th maiden speech. As noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord has had a distinguished career both in Stormont and in the other place. During that time he has led on trade and industry, foreign and Commonwealth affairs and many other issues. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that his interests are listed as Irish politics, the European Union, regional policy and agriculture, all of which are clearly major interests of this House. We greatly look forward to further distinguished contributions from the noble Lord in the future.

To celebrate the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ my diocese of Gloucester organised three diocesan pilgrimages to visit the people and places of the Holy Land in the millennium year. I had the privilege of leading the first of those in May 2000. Our party consisted of over 40 Christian pilgrims who had a rewarding, happy and deeply spiritual experience.

One of the most powerful memories had nothing to do with the holy sites at all and happened during one of our coach journeys, when our guide, Oliver, picked up the microphone and announced, "Have a look at those two police cars stopped by the side of the road". We did but it hardly seemed worth his mentioning. There were two cars, one behind the other, with the occupants—it was difficult to tell whether they were police or soldiers—chatting, joking and smoking cigarettes as one happy group of friends. "Ah", said Oliver. "one of those groups is Palestinian and the other is Israeli. I have never seen such a sight as that before. It is the most hopeful sign of a lasting peace that I have seen for a long time". The remainder of our pilgrimage was similarly happy and hopeful and we returned feeling positive about the future for a lasting peace.

It was a bitter blow, therefore, to all those hopes when at the end of September of that year Mr Sharon felt it necessary to visit the highly sensitive Muslim compound of the Haram-al-Sharif on Jerusalem's Temple Mountain, which was the catalyst of what has become known as the Al-Aqsa intifada. Life in the Holy Land became so dangerous and precarious that the third of our diocesan pilgrimages, with 70 pilgrims, which my colleague the Bishop of Tewkesbury was leading had to be cancelled at very short notice. The situation in the year which followed, and up to today, has remained so risky that it has never been possible to rearrange that pilgrimage.

It is sad, of course, for the diocese of Gloucester, equally sad for many other planned pilgrimages since and sad for the considerable pilgrimage economy, the tour companies and the local tour guides. It is devastating for the indigenous Church in Palestine and for Bishop Riah, who with his clergy and lay Christians struggle, with increasing difficulty and marginalisation, to keep alive the important concepts of Christians in that land, being living stones, and caring as well as they can for the ancient stones of the holy sites.

I do not have to make decisions in these matters which affect the lives of others. However, I assure those who do that they have the sympathy and prayers of us all. I have a small plaque at the window of my study at home which says simply, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem"; and I do so every day. Every Sunday of this year when I have been participating in worship in parish churches throughout my diocese, I cannot remember one service in which we did not remember in our prayers the people of the Holy Land—the Israelis and the Palestinians, Christians, Jews and Muslims—and prayed earnestly for peace with justice. Those of us who believe in the power of prayer must continue to do so. We pray that all possible steps will be taken to end the violence, resume serious dialogue now, as many noble Lords have reminded us, and bring about a full implementation of the recommendations of the Mitchell committee.

A letter published recently in the Independent Review, signed by members of the three faiths principally represented in the Holy Land, ended with these words: We call on responsible members of our 3 faiths to set a lead in demanding that Palestinians and Israelis should respect the God-given sanctity of human life, and at the same time to give public expression to our solidarity with all those in the Holy Land who in the face of mounting hatred and violence continue to strive for mutual understanding and peace". I gladly express my solidarity with those sentiments.

9.28 p.m.

Lord Temple-Morris

My Lords, as the first Member of the House from these Benches to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, perhaps I may say how delighted I am to have come to this House with him. I congratulate the noble Lord on a fine maiden speech, of which he has due experience. Nevertheless it was fine because it was balanced. His interests go way beyond the island of Ireland and the onerous responsibilities that he has held there. I have travelled with him and we have shared many of those interests. It is fair to say that we get on famously together—I like to think that he considers me a friend—as long as we do not discuss the island of Ireland.

I wish to address a somewhat wider issue than simply Arab-Israel. When debating foreign affairs in another place or in this Chamber, one always has this feeling that the speech is better made on Capitol Hill. One always gets dragged back to that factor on these issues.

While my remarks will include matters concerning the Americans, I wish to address them to Her Majesty's Government and to representations which I hope are being made privately, and increasingly will have to be made, to Washington when the next chapters of these vital events for world peace are unfolding.

My central point—here I go wider than the Arab-Israeli situation—is that if we are to make any sense of these matters, we must separate Arab-Israeli problems in dealing with terrorism from peace in the Middle East. They are obviously closely connected but there are different perceptions of terrorism in the Middle East. It is important for noble Lords to take that on board.

I shall deal with the two main heads of perception in the Middle East. First, there is a perception concerning the terrorism of Al'Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. That terrorism might have invoked the Almighty to a certain extent—I should have thought that He is quite horrified—but it is politically motivated terrorism. It is directed as much, if not more so, against existing Middle East regimes as against the United States and the West. That involves not only the obvious Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and others but also the more secular countries that are leaning towards the West or are pro-West such as Egypt. They are all within the target area. Therefore, in the Middle East as a whole such terrorism is seen as terrorism. The war in Afghanistan and any necessary—I stress that word—follow up which may involve Sudan, Somalia or Yemen would be more or less accepted in the Middle East.

The second head of perception involves terrorism that is directed against Israel. That still involves terrorism and it is still abominable and horrible. However, perceptions of it, particularly in the light of recent events, are different. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have the potential in that region to be seen as freedom fighters. Israel's aggressive reaction time and again—I refer to the tit-for-tat killings and assassinations, the tanks and bulldozers and the use of F16s in domestic situations—makes it more difficult for moderates in the region to be pro-American. Moreover, it blunts the support that the Middle East can give to the wider struggle against Al'Qaeda—such support could be better and stronger than it currently is. It also occurs at a time when at least most countries in the region accept the existence of the state of Israel within its legal boundaries.

Finally, I make two points about where our influence should go. First, we must try to ensure that the United States does not get carried away. Having spent most of last week in Washington, I can say that there is a serious threat of that. To bomb Iraq without the clearest evidence of a connection with Al'Qaeda would, first, set the whole of the Middle East alight; secondly, it would seriously destabilise friendly regimes; thirdly, it would guarantee that terrorism would continue and increase in a very big way; and, fourthly, it would separate Europe from the United States and, very regrettably—I should very much regret this personally—it would separate the United Kingdom from the United States.

My wider point is that the United States must be seen to be conducting an inclusive policy in the region that is its own policy, not one that is seen, with some cause—this is the universal perception in the region—to he the policy of Israel.

9.33 p.m.

Lord Jacobs

My Lords, I have visited Israel twice this year in my role as chairman of the board of governors of the University of Haifa. That university, incidentally, has 20 per cent Israeli Arab students, including Muslims, Christians and Druze.

My first visit was on Friday, 1st June. That evening, a suicide bomb exploded in a discotheque in Tel Aviv which murdered 21 youngsters and injured more than 100. Israel was shocked; indeed, the world was shocked. I clearly remember saying that if Israel could just resist any form of retaliation that could help to restart the peace process.

There was no retaliation, and for two weeks everything was quiet between the Palestinians and Israelis. I was told, however, that that is normal after any outrage and that the intifada would commence in about three weeks' time. Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. By then, Palestinians had carried out nearly 20 successful suicide bomb attempts and approaching 100 unsuccessful suicide bomb attempts. Why did this suicide bomb attack differ from nearly 20 earlier attacks? Until that moment there had been Israeli retaliation after each event. Israelis soon realised, however, that non-retaliation did nothing to stop the violence.

Following that outrage, support for targeted retaliations rapidly increased. Such retaliations were seen as the only means of preventing Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and other organisations supporting and directing suicide bombers and other terrorist activities.

I visited Israel again on 20th November, staying incidentally in Haifa and Jerusalem. One week later, there were three more successful suicide bomb outrages—two in Jerusalem and one in Haifa, murdering 31 people, many of whom were teenagers.

With the encouragement of the United States, Israel had sought to persuade Arafat that so many of the terrorists who had been imprisoned by the Palestinians and who were now released should be rearrested. Israel presented Arafat with a list of 100 terrorists. This was subsequently reduced to 20 and, finally, to just 10. Eventually, Arafat rearrested only four.

The Israelis cannot understand how people equate targeted killing against those who direct and support suicide bombers with the suicide bombers' intention to slaughter the maximum number of innocent civilians and, in particular, to kill children, as happened on 1st June and 26th November. Israelis today are wholly disillusioned with the peace process, especially those who strongly supported it when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister.

In July 2000 the proposals by Israel at Camp David were far more generous than most Israelis had thought possible. Indeed, the general assumption was that Barak gave 110 per cent of what Israel could afford to give. The Americans were astonished that the proposals were rejected. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, about those agreements, perhaps I may add that I know for a fact that a significant number of the key advisers to Yasser Arafat advised him to accept the proposals. It was his single decision not to accept them.

Before Arafat's rejection, at least 70 per cent of Israel was wholeheartedly in favour of a peace agreement which would include full recognition of a Palestinian state. After the rejection, practically all Israelis believe that Arafat is not prepared to sign any peace agreement. Dennis Ross, the former US Middle East negotiator, recently expressed the view that his experience with Arafat demonstrated clearly that Arafat had extreme difficulties in making decisions. Israel may, indeed, be right that Arafat is unable or unwilling to be a responsive leader so far as concerns the peace process. I believe that Israelis and Palestinians are willing to make peace, but perhaps not both leaders.

9.38 p.m.

Lord Wright of Richmond

My Lords, I also express thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate this evening. It comes at an appropriately crucial turning point in the tragic history of the peace process—a moment aptly described this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth as Kairos: a moment of change.

The past 14 months have seen an appalling deterioration in the security situation in Israel and the occupied territories—a cycle of terror and counter-terror, fuelled on one side by the deplorable succession of suicide bombings and violence from Palestinian organisations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and, on the other, by the illegal and expanding occupation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements and by Prime Minister Sharon's policy of targeted assassinations and attempts to humiliate and isolate the Palestinian population and, in particular, their elected leader, Yasser Arafat.

There are some glimmers of hope. The European Union declaration of 10th December calling on Israel to end the extrajudicial killings and on Arafat to end the intifada and the succession of suicide bombings may have contributed to Arafat's welcome statement yesterday ordering the complete and immediate cessation of all military action. It remains to be seen whether his orders will or can be obeyed. I fear that too many such orders and assurances have come to nothing. The degree of humiliation, resentment, deprivation and despair built up in the occupied territories over the years will have made such assurances difficult for him to honour, particularly if, as the maiden speaker said, Israelis continue their attacks even after those assurances by Arafat. Let us remember, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has reminded the House, that the latest intifada was sparked by Sharon's deliberately provocative electoral gimmick of entering Al-Aqsa 14 months ago—14 months that have witnessed more than 200 Israeli and over 800 Palestinian deaths.

The cycle of terror and counter-terror achieves nothing, and certainly not the security of the Israeli people that Sharon claims is his main objective and which is, indeed, their right. Let us also hope that the attempt to humiliate and to isolate Arafat, if not worse, will now cease. Surely, any alternative Palestinian interlocutor in the present climate of violence and suffering could only be worse. However much credibility Arafat has lost, Israel still needs a dialogue partner, a partner for peace and a partner for security.

Although nothing can justify the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it is significant that most of the incidents of violence and suicide bombings by Palestinians have in some way involved Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Surely it is time not just for a freeze on settlement activity, as Senator Mitchell and the EU have called for, but for Israel to start withdrawing from the existing settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Not only are they an infringement of the Geneva conventions, but their very existence is a constant provocation to the Palestinians whose land they have illegally occupied.

We should have no illusions that very difficult decisions are now needed from both sides. The time for claims and counter-claims of responsibility is over. European Union declarations are welcome, but we should be under no illusions that only swift, determined and even-handed American intervention can hope to rescue the peace process now. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House something of the talks with Secretary of State Colin Powell that took place in London on 11th December, and that he can also give the House an assurance, in response to the question posed by the noble Earl, that we and our European partners are continuing to press the case in Washington for urgent and effective American intervention at the highest level. It would be tragic if the success of the military operations in Afghanistan were now undermined by a failure to address what I believe should be our highest foreign policy priority: the need to tackle the real and underlying problems facing Israel and the Palestinians.

9.43 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, on his wise and authoritative maiden speech. As other noble Lords have emphasised, the people in many of the countries of the Middle East, especially Israel, Palestine and the Lebanon, suffer from the effects of conflict. In others they suffer the effects of tyrannical regimes. Perhaps even more painfully for those countries, there is not much hope of early improvement of the situation. However, I believe that there are some small practical measures that the UK Government can take in concert with other countries in Europe that would help the situation.

Anyone who has visited Israel, as I have on several occasions, must be enormously impressed by the achievements of that country in creating a thriving economy based on desert agriculture, technology and entrepreneurial brilliance and aided by generous US funds and brain-power from all over the world. However, one is depressed by the fact that one sees nothing like that development in the West Bank areas of the Palestine Authority and by the great hostility felt on both sides between Israelis and Arabs. Usually academic and cultural contacts survive in some form even the bleakest enmity between states and communities, as experienced during the Cold War and during many ethnic and religious conflicts around the world, but they need nurturing.

Recently, we heard in your Lordships' House a report of a British Council visit to Palestine and how it is very difficult to maintain any kind of exchange programme when the Palestinian buildings are being destroyed by the Israeli forces. Indeed, UK educational charities, such as UNIPAL, which I have supported for 25 years, are now unable to operate in Palestine.

At the same time, the UK and other European governments are finding many excellent scientific and cultural programmes involving Israeli individuals and groups. I heard today to my pleasure that, with my Dutch colleagues, I shall be involved with one over the forthcoming years.

But all the literature that I have seen excludes any mention of the Palestinian institutions that may also he involved. I believe that the Government can really do something about that. They must make enormous efforts to be even-handed in their approach to these two communities and to ensure that no Israeli cultural visitors can come to the UK while visa and other restrictions are applied to bona fide Palestinian visitors and while academic and cultural institutions in Palestine are being destroyed or prevented from operating by Israeli forces. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and how the Government will be addressing the question of even-handedness in concert with their EU colleagues.

An equally important but wider injustice which British academic colleagues have mentioned is the difficulty raised by the UK in admitting scholars from Middle Eastern countries. That difficulty has been particularly marked for visitors from Iraq who are able, I understand, to visit other European countries much more easily than the UK. Surely, we can keep open communications with all the countries of the Middle East for all political, economic and cultural benefits.

A much longer-term connection between the interests of the UK and the Middle East relates to something which again I am interested in—oil and climate change. As the current issue of the Economist explains, the present dependence of the world on Middle East oil leads to very skewed economies and excessive powers in the hands of authoritarian regimes. However, the world will slowly turn from the oil economy during this century. Indeed, the Government are working hard to pursue this long-term policy. That is important for the UK because it will help us eventually to meet the problems of the rising sea levels. But in the long term this will also help the Middle East to return to a better balanced society.

9.47 p.m.

Lord Stone of Blackheath

My Lords, in four minutes apportioning blame is a waste of time and the current vile and vicious violence is best addressed through the Mitchell and Tenet reports. I wish only to urge our Government to take an active role, together with other European leaders, to help Israel and Palestine to agree a long-term strategy and then to help see it through. The only workable strategy is a two state solution whereby those who live in Israel and Palestine are given a reasonable dream of a viable secure state for each and each other and can see this actualised in their lifetimes.

Israel almost fulfilled its dream in less than two generations. It became a state when I was six years old. When I was 16, in 1959, I visited it for the first time. I saw that the people there, with very little resource, had transformed what was an odd-shaped strip of land—two-thirds desert and one-third swamp—into a blossoming agricultural state. A few decades later it had missed out an industrialised phase and has become a highly efficient, high-tech, modern, prosperous country. It has taken half a century.

So what about across the border? As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, what about their dream? Last month I spent some time in Gaza. I have been in the West Bank and I know it. We see the devastation in these areas in the media but actually Gaza has great beauty and viable resources; a long Mediterranean coast of white beaches and date palms; and natural gas already found in large quantities off its coast. The West Bank is a fertile Jordan valley with its rich soil and the possibility of sweet water available. When it has an open wide transport link across Israel to Gaza and the entrepreneurial and industrious Palestinian people are able to work with, and within all those countries around it, it will have great potential.

Moderate people who live in Israel and Palestine want a stable two-state solution. They know that the compromises needed are huge and laden with difficult, historical and emotional baggage. But these reasonable people would live with the following: two states along the pre-1967 borders; Jerusalem to remain one city but become two capitals; settlement frozen; a "right of return" for Palestinians, and Jews from Arab lands, resolved through international agreements that preserves the demographic integrity of both states. All of those are difficult but negotiable.

What both peoples lack now is leadership with a positive, not a negative vision. Each needs leaders who are reasonable enough to do such a deal but at the same time credible enough to both sides to see it through. Unfortunately, Israel's cock-eyed system of democracy never gives sufficient strong, long-term support to its peacemakers. As is often the case when state terror has been used, the Palestinian people have gangsters in their leadership.

Israel and Palestine are obviously not in the same situation as Afghanistan, but, in Palestine, those who are opposed to terror and corruption are being put down in horrible ways. The international community should protect them and put resources behind their cause. Those in Israel's coalition who have a positive, progressive, peaceful plan also need support and encouragement from outside.

We should encourage and facilitate dialogue between the moderates on both sides. Israel nearly has its dream; Palestine can have its, too. I know of individuals, businesses and banks waiting in the wings ready to help. They already have plans to build power stations in Gaza and the West Bank and then to buy the power generated. People are ready to set up factories, housing complexes and shopping centres jointly owned and run with Palestinians. I know of infrastructure projects of road and rail, oil pipelines and schools, universities and hospitals waiting to begin.

Our Government could play a pivotal role. America is not acceptable to the Palestinians, and many Arab states have not even recognised Israel. I should like the Minister to tell me—if not tonight, by letter—exactly how many Middle Eastern and Gulf countries have stated that they agree to Israel's right to exist? They must also be made to stop terror. So it is left to our Government to work together with European states to help both the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

But Europe must not try to balance America's bias. We should support and back those individuals within the ranks of both leaderships who have the courage and conviction to be generous and reasonable and to work towards a two-state solution. Europe is unique in having countries with different histories and, therefore, varying shades of opinion about the area. The pay-off for Europe's positive involvement would be the Mediterranean being encircled by a wondrous array of people living in peace who, together with Europe, could be mutually beneficial.

9.52 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate, which is extremely important. As all of your Lordships have said, it is extremely difficult to find a real solution. It appears that everyone is concerned with either the people who live in Israel or the lot of the Palestinians, which is terrible. But the truth is that most people are interested in and concerned about both.

The Question asks: what can the British Government do to try to help the peace process? Without the peace process there will never be a proper solution. The noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, touched on the point that, truthfully, our Government could persuade or use their influence to suggest to the Arab countries that they should recognise Israel's right to exist. If we are to look to a two-state solution, we cannot ask anyone to sit side by side with someone who is determined to get rid of him.

I say that because if we are to talk about history—although it does not teach us everything, it teaches us a fair bit—in 1948, within 48 hours of the state being declared, six Arab armies attacked that tiny democracy. Israel has had to fight for its very existence and life for years. Today we face the problem of the suicide bombers.

Many noble Lords talked about what Israel has achieved since 1948, and I do not want to waste time by repeating that. It has a thriving economy; it has universities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, said, it has hospitals and schools and it looks after its people. Many people do not realise that since the early 1950s, Israel has absorbed between 600,000 and 700,000 Jewish refugees who were either turfed out of Arab countries or left of their own volition. Those refugees have been settled in Israel, have been accepted and have had a good life. In contrast, we see the horror of the Palestinian refugees who live in poverty.

No Arab country—and many are wealthy—has offered to take them in and house them. It seemed politically easier to leave them as a sore so that everyone could talk about how terrible is the lot of the Palestinian Arabs. It is, but the problem could be dealt with by those Arab countries if they wanted to do so.

I turn to the second area in which the Government could use their influence. They could suggest that the Arab leaders tell their own people the truth about the situation. After the awful events of 11th September, it is no good to hear that the problem was as a result of Israel. Such language is bad in the long-term interests of peace. Children in Arab schools are taught about the glory of being a suicide bomber and about the terrible things which the Israelis do. They are told that they are rapists, murderers and thieves. I am sure that many noble Lords who, like me, read the report in today's Daily Telegraph were as upset as I was to realise that people can make such remarks.

I do not want to say any more. I have mentioned two steps that our Government can take. I accept that people who have views different from mine also want peace, as do I. I believe that together we could all try to use our influence and ensure that that happens.

9.56 p.m.

Lord Mitchell

My Lords, I, too, want to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and congratulate him on making his maiden speech. He said many wise words. In particular, he pointed to the many parallels which can be drawn with the situation in Northern Ireland.

I also want to declare that I have an interest similar to that declared by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. My wife is also involved in the New Israel Fund. Many of us from the Jewish community feel passionately not only about Israel but also about what is happening in Palestine. We see the same pictures on our television screens. We see Palestinian children being killed and we hate and loathe it and we want it to stop.

I want to quote what President Clinton said yesterday in London when he gave the annual Dimbleby lecture. He said: Before I left office I recommended and Israel accepted, hut the PLO rejected, the most dramatic peace proposal for a comprehensive fair peace in the Middle East to give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and Gaza. It would have protected Muslim and Palestinian religious and political equities on the Temple Mount, the Haram al-Sharif". As noble Lords will recall, Chairman Arafat walked out of those negotiations. So although I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate, my reluctant conclusion is that so long as Chairman Arafat is around, the peace process will remain a stalemate.

The question is: why did Arafat spurn a deal that offered him almost everything he had asked for? My opinion is that there really are two Yassir Arafats. The first Arafat speaks in English and addresses the West. He is statesmanlike. He talks of two states, Israel and Palestine, living in harmony side by side. That Arafat receives the Nobel prize for peace and is seen in the company of the great and the good all over the world.

But there is another Arafat. This one speaks in Arabic and speaks to his Arab constituency both in Palestine and throughout the Middle East. This Arafat is bellicose and talks not in terms of Israel retreating to the 1967 borders but of a Palestinian state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. This one entertains no state of Israel.

This Arafat allows his schools and his media to demonise Jews. He closes his eyes to terrorism and until yesterday had done little to rein in the suicide bombers. This Arafat runs his fiefdom like a Mafia boss: corrupt, nepotistic, autocratic and responsible to no one.

When Barak made his sensational offer this time last year, Arafat found himself on the horns of a dilemma. It was his moment of reckoning—both Arafats would have to mouth the same words. So what did he do? He upped and bolted.

In our lifetimes we have seen many men who, in their youths, were described as dangerous terrorists, but who, in middle age, matured into statesmen. Yesterday's freedom fighters emerged to become the fathers of their nations. The tragedy in this situation is that, whatever metamorphis effects such a transformation, in Yasser Arafat's case it never happened.

10 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, this short debate has made the case for a longer debate in government time in this House on this extremely important problem. Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I am a glutton for punishment—I have been here for both debates today. In a sense, this is a continuation of the previous debate, in which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said that the Arab/Israel conflict is as important a priority for the United States—and, indeed, for Western Europe—as is a settlement in Afghanistan. That is the degree of importance this crisis has for us. It has implications for the whole of the Middle East, for relations with Iraq and for the West, which depends on oil.

I agree strongly with those who have said that part of the tragedy of the situation is the declining quality of leadership on both sides. Arafat has clearly been there too long. He appears not to be personally corrupt, but many of his friends are clearly part of a very corrupt system. Sharon is not the best or most constructive Prime Minister that Israel could have, and, sadly, the divisions in Israeli politics and society are themselves an obstacle to peace. We have, therefore, severe problems.

The Israeli attempt to replace Arafat by force is a further mistake. If we find that Arafat has been replaced by Hamas, we will be in a worse situation than we are now. There has to be a legitimate authority with which the Israelis can deal. I was very distressed when I was talking to various representatives of Israel in the past week in an attempt to get some sense; I cannot find a constructive Israeli strategy at the moment. The only thing we have is retaliation for each act of terrorism or, as the Palestinians would put it, resistance.

We need to remind the current Israeli Government that European support for Israel was always based on the presupposition that Israel was a more open, liberal society than its Arab opponents, and that its Government would continue to behave in a qualitatively more civilised fashion. That presupposition is now, to some extent, in jeopardy.

We have to address the question of the settlements. They are illegal; they were placed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to provoke; and, for the fundamentalists who occupy some of them, they are intended to occupy the land of Eretz Israel and eventually to drive the Palestinians out of the whole of the land of Israel. That is what it looks like to Palestinians. That is a part of what drives the politics of despair which fuel suicide bombers.

Israel has to tackle its own fundamentalists and its own inability to observe UN resolutions if it is to maintain any kind of policy towards peace. I was sorry to see in the Israeli Embassy briefing a reference to the Palestine Authority's failure to fulfil its commitments and undertakings because Israel, too, has failed to fulfil its commitments and undertakings, and to recognise UN resolutions.

I wish to make two more points. The United States is also a part of the problem. I was also in the United States two weeks ago, where I was shaken rigid by the number of congressmen who are now saying, "And Iraq comes next", and refusing to recognise that the Iraq and Israeli problems go together. I was even more shaken, as were a number of other European politicians who were there, to hear a Democratic congressman say, "You Europeans ought to learn more about Israel. I have been on a very well balanced tour of Israel and of Palestine, sponsored by AIPAC, which gave me a very thorough impression of what was there". That is part of the problem. The American political elite sees a different set of issues from those we see over here.

My last point, therefore, is what do Europeans do? What does Britain do as a European state? The answer has to be that we revive more active European involvement in the Israeli-Arab conflict. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, sketched out as a settlement. There was one occasion on which EU member governments, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he was the British Foreign Secretary, attempted in the Venice Declaration a European initiative in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Americans immediately protested and we backtracked.

A very substantial proportion of EU external assistance goes to the Palestinian Authority and to the others in the region. Part of what is now being bombed and destroyed has been paid for by the Europeans. What we have to see, I suggest, is a much more active European role if we are to avoid the situation deteriorating further.

10.5 p.m.

Baroness Rawlings

My Lords, we thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for having initiated this debate. It has been most informative, with many diverse contributions.

This debate is as important in its way as the earlier one on the current situation in Afghanistan. These two geographically different areas are in today's global but shrunken world beset by so many similar problems. My Lords, why? And why are we discussing these two areas? The answer is surely terrorism. The chronic instability in both of these areas undermines vital Western economic interests and threatens world peace and security. The terrorist outrage on 11th September shocked the complacency of the West.

We on this side have been horrified and outraged by the recent bombings in Israel. Only last week 10 more innocent Israeli citizens were shot dead on a bus at a Jewish settlement. Our thoughts are with the families of those who have lost loved ones and with those people who every day fear for their security. Sadly, this is only the latest terrorist attack in the region.

In the light of this, it should come as no surprise to us that Israel has broken off all contact with Chairman Arafat. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in an admirable maiden speech. We welcome the swift action taken earlier this month by the United States to freeze the assets of three groups linked with funding Hamas. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups of their ilk are terrorists. They are not militants. Their only objective is to spread misery and human suffering. As President Bush has said, it is now time for those who want peace to rise up and fight terror. This fight must be conducted wherever incontrovertible evidence of terrorism exists.

It is difficult to be an optimist about the Middle East peace prospects. Windows of opportunity stay open for only a short time, until we settle down to the usual drift. But this does not absolve us from trying. In dealing with this problem we should take to heart Gramsci's credo, "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will".

First, such is the resolve of the world against terrorism at this time that those who commit terrorist attacks only set back their cause. Secondly, there are structures in place through which peace can be achieved in the Middle East. Even though the situation today looks bleak and depressing, the only viable solution for both Israelis and Palestinians is to return to the negotiating table, keeping in mind the outline of the deal brokered at Camp David and Taba, and to implement the Tenant-Mitchell plans. It is from this basis that we must work.

In his proposals George Mitchell urges Israel and the Palestinians to "reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements"; calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire; calls on Palestinians to crack down on terrorism; and calls on Israel to freeze all new construction of settlements.

In US Envoys Zinni and Burns we have two prominent diplomats to guide this process on the ground. Israel has signed peace treaties with two of its major neighbours—Egypt and Jordan. It has withdrawn its troops from the territories of a third neighbour, Lebanon. Most of the Arab world has expressed a desire to live in peace with Israel if it resolves its dispute with two of its remaining neighbours—Syria and the Palestinians. Such a peace can be achieved only in line with international resolutions adopted by the Security Council.

The fresh outbreak of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, especially over the past few days, threatens to bring the area back to a dead end. That would be disastrous for Israelis, Arabs and the rest of the world. Yet a few facts remain constant and important for any future road map for peace in the Middle East.

The Palestinians and the Arab world will never be able to impose a solution on Israel by force. Israel is already a superpower in the region. The world community considers its existence and safety to be of vital concern. There can be no logical or moral ground for continued confrontation with Israel once peace is achieved. Equally, however, Israel, despite its military power, will never be able to resolve its dispute with the Palestinians (and Arabs) by force alone.

Peace in the Middle East is an important part of the jigsaw in the fight against terrorism. Yasser Arafat should continue to be pressed to act swiftly. All measures must be taken to pursue and apprehend those responsible for terrorism anywhere in the world.

I was reminded the other day by a colleague that Goethe wrote that God had sent mankind the Devil in order to stir him out of his accustomed sloth. Perhaps we shall look back on bin Laden as the devil from whose evil acts of terrorism good was able to come to the Middle East.

10.11 p.m.

Lord Grocott

My Lords, like other speakers, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate. I was about to say that it is a timely debate, but the sad truth is that almost any debate on any day, in any year, in respect of the Middle East could be described as "timely". It would be wonderful if we could have a debate on the Middle East that did not respond to immediate points of crisis.

My job is to respond to 15 speeches, to summarise some of the problems of the Middle East and to point the way forward, and in only 12 minutes—which will take a bit of doing. By way of a brief summary to begin with, this has been a moving debate, given the number of different perspectives that speakers have brought to it—nearly all of them in one form or another calling for a return to the negotiating table and passionately wanting peace. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, in many ways this debate is as important as our earlier debate on Afghanistan. It certainly relates to a problem which the international community has found even more intractable and long-standing.

Perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. I find it odd to be describing him as making his maiden speech, having heard him, as he has heard me, on numerous occasions in the other place. As ever, he brings knowledge, expertise and fluency to this subject, as he has done to so many others.

The Government are greatly concerned by the cycle of violence in the region and the tragic deaths on both sides. It is tragic to reflect on the phenomenal optimism which existed at the time of the Oslo accords just eight years ago and the frightening degree to which it seems to have dissipated.

We condemned the appalling suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa and we shared the outrage felt in Israel at these and other recent atrocities—which were referred to specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. As my noble friend Lady Symons said when she repeated a Statement in this House on 5th December, such attacks, have put the people of Israel in fear of going about their normal lives".—[Official Report, 5/12/01; col. 889.] These attacks must stop. They hinder the recognition of legitimate Palestinian aspirations. They are self-defeating.

At the same time, Palestinians are suffering fear, injury and death as a result of Israeli actions. We were shocked by the deaths of two young children in an Israeli attempted assassination on 10th December. Too often children and innocent bystanders have been killed and injured in this conflict. My noble friend Lord Mitchell put it eloquently when he said that we hate it; we loathe it; we want it to stop. It is clear that the cycle of violence benefits no one. It is time for action on both sides to end it.

Both parties have responsibility to break the current impasse, to end the violence and to resume substantive dialogue immediately. We made it clear to President Arafat that he must now deliver on his promises to detain terrorist suspects and to remove the threat that terrorists pose to the stability of the region. It hardly needs emphasising that terrorist violence will not help to secure a viable Palestinian state. Indeed, President Arafat called the Jerusalem and Haifa suicide bombings an attack on the Palestinians. Your Lordships will know that yesterday he called publicly for all terrorist operations to end. We very much welcome and support him in that appeal, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Wright of Richmond.

President Arafat should also take immediate steps to end the incitement that sours the atmosphere still further. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to President Arafat on 5th December and reinforced the message that he must act quickly and take the first step.

Of course, the Israelis also have responsibilities. We recognise that they are entitled to ensure their security, but their actions must be restrained and proportionate to the threat. The Israelis must recognise that peace can be secured only by negotiation. The only figure with whom Israel can negotiate peace is President Arafat. He is the elected leader of the Palestinian people and it serves no one's interests to undermine his position. We therefore reject any description of the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist entity. Some of those points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond.

There is a recognised route back to the negotiating table, which we and our European Union partners support. Despite the setbacks of recent weeks, it remains the best option. Both parties have accepted the recommendations of the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell committee report. They should be implemented without delay. My noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath emphasised the importance of a moderate opinion in all these negotiations.

The Tenet plan outlines a timetable for parallel action by the parties to end the violence, resume security co-operation and implement confidence-building measures. The Mitchell report charts a way out of the violence. It includes the Palestinian Authority making a 100 per cent effort to prevent terrorist operations and discouraging incitement. It also calls on Israel to freeze all settlement activity, lift closures and end the destruction of Palestinian property. Ultimately peace between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through a political process on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, to implement land for peace, deliver security for Israel within recognised borders—a point emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—bring an end to occupation and allow the emergence of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. That was restated as recently as today in the Statement on the summit by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the other place.

Resolution of the conflict may seem a long way off. Not surprisingly the mood was sombre in a number of the contributions of noble Lords. I emphasise that the Government are fully engaged with the United States and our European Union partners in diplomatic efforts to move the peace process forward. The general affairs council decided to send EU High Representative Solana to the region on 10th December. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned the importance of European involvement. Mr Solana reported back to the Laeken European Council on 14th December. The statement from that council is well worth reading. It is a reaffirmation of the package approach, calling on the Palestinians to deliver on their commitments to end violence and to make arrests, and on Israel to cease actions such as the attacks on Palestinian infrastructure that undermine the Palestinian Authority's ability to deliver.

Our efforts run in parallel with those of the US envoys General Zinni and Assistant Secretary of State Burns to secure a ceasefire. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, peace is a two-way process.

A number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Temple-Morris, have stressed the importance of encouraging the United States to continue its engagement in the region. We welcome the recent comments of President Bush, recognising President Arafat as the elected representative of the Palestinians. The Government will remain in close contact with all the players in the peace process.

We have also taken our own action against Palestinian terrorism. We took action to freeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation on 6th December—an organisation suspected of funding Hamas. We will consider any further evidence presented to us by other governments about organisations supporting terrorists and will take action where appropriate.

We, the US and our EU partners believe that third party monitors could help overcome obstacles to the implementation of the Mitchell committee recommendations. That point was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. For monitors to be successful, both parties would have to agree to their presence.

We are under no illusion about the enormously difficult issues that need to be resolved in negotiations, but the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton also made important contributions concerning the importance of small steps in the right direction and small confidence-building measures. I re-emphasise that we have repeatedly called for a freeze on Israeli activity in the occupied territories, including natural growth, under the terms of the Mitchell report. The noble Lords, Lord Gilmour, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all stressed the importance of that. I remind the House of my earlier comment that the Mitchell report has been accepted by both parties. We have said that settlements are illegal under international law and are a real obstacle to peace.

We also recognise that Israeli closures in the occupied territories cause severe economic hardship and unemployment, which can only fuel hatred and violence and make a comprehensive settlement more difficult to achieve. We have repeatedly raised our concerns to the Israeli Government on political, legal and humanitarian grounds. We did so again with our EU partners at the EU-Israel Association council on 20th November in Brussels. We have also called on Israel to end its policy of incursions and assassinations. Assassinations are illegal under international law and serve to provoke tension on the ground, which, I am sure that we all agree, is not in Israel's long-term interests. Under the terms of the Tenet plan, Israel is required to end proactive security operations in the Palestinian Authority.

I said earlier that there were a number of issues to be discussed in final status negotiations, leading to a settlement that allows the emergence of a viable Palestinian state and provides security for Israel. Those are obviously the two pillars of any solution. The issues still to be resolved are many, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for refugees and the questions of borders and natural resources.

This has been a sombre and serious debate, as befits the deadly seriousness of the issues that we have been discussing. Whenever I find myself listening to or participating in such debates, I think that in our domestic politics we use words such as "emergency" or "crisis" rather too easily, compared with the difficulties encountered by people trying to solve the problems of violence in the Middle East. The Palestinian and Israeli people have suffered from violence and fear for far too long. Sooner or later they must return to the negotiating table. That is the only means of creating peace in the region and ending the terrible violence that blights lives but guarantees that generation after generation will grow up with a sense and feeling of hatred.

During Prime Minister's Question Time in another place last week, my right honourable friend said that, the peace process has to be relaunched, based on two points of principle: the first is Israel's existence, secure and confident in its own borders, and accepted by the whole of the Arab world, and the second is the need for a viable Palestinian state".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/2001; col. 831.] We can find a way of bringing peace to the region. We will continue to work with the US and our European Union partners to bring the peace that the people of the region so desperately need.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.