Occupied Territories

HC Deb 04 May 2004 vol 420 cc373-94WH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

9.30 am

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab)

The debate is undoubtedly topical. The rejection by Likud members this weekend of the plans drawn up by Prime Minister Sharon should not lead us to believe that those plans were in any way right; it merely shows the deeply held views of a very right-wing party that wants to hang on to all the occupied territories, and the lobbying by the settlers, who obviously have much influence in the Likud party.

I requested this debate because of deep concern about Israel's intentions for the occupied post-1967 territories. The plan, as we know, was to evacuate the Gaza strip but to remain in occupation in nearly all the rest of the Palestinian land. That concern was deepened by President Bush's endorsement of the plan. The very fact that the most powerful nation—the one country that has such influence with Israel—was willing, through its leadership, to endorse the plan causes great concern. I am not at all surprised that 50 diplomats from the United States have made known their dismay at what has occurred. In my view, they speak more for the United States than President Bush does on this matter.

As for the west bank, just four settlements, with a population of 517, were to be evacuated. That would have left 134 settlements with a population numbering some 200,000—and that is apart, of course, from Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the Golan. Moreover, many of the settlements were begun or much expanded in recent years. Let us not forget for one moment that they are all illegal under international law.

It is difficult to see it, but what was intended for Gaza was a first step towards the road map, leading to a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. Of course, various Prime Ministers viewed the plan as a step to be welcomed, because it would have led to the viable and sovereign Palestinian state that was intended. However, let us be clear that it has never been the intention of Prime Minister Sharon, and certainly not of the Likud party, to allow any such state.

During his campaign to be elected Prime Minister in February 2001, Sharon made it perfectly clear that he did not intend to pursue a final peace deal with Palestinians that would give them their own state. He is not the leader of Likud for nothing. His aim, as commentators have said, was to pursue a series of deals to contain the bloodshed, as far as Israel was concerned, and to establish calm. As for calm, it can hardly be forgotten that, in his election campaign, Sharon took the most provocative action possible in going to the Temple Mount. We know what followed. That action was no accident; it was deliberate, and he knew what he was doing.

We should not forget—I have no intention of doing so, and when Sharon was elected, I raised the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time—that when Sharon was Minister of Defence he bore indirect responsibility for the massacre of Palestinian refugees in September 1982. Had he not given permission to the Lebanese Christian sect—the massacre was carried out by Christians—it is very unlikely that any such massacre could have occurred. Moreover, let us not forget that, when that massacre occurred, more than 400,000 Israelis demonstrated. If ever there were a demonstration along the lines of "not in our name", that was it. Nor must we forget that the commission that looked into Sharon's conduct as Minister of Defence concluded that he was not fit to hold that office.

The road map lays out various phases. Phase 1 was meant to freeze all settlements and to dismantle settlement outposts constructed since 2001. That was to lead in 2004–05 towards a permanent status settlement, including agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians on borders, Jerusalem and the vexed, difficult and sensitive matters of refugees and other related issues. I emphasise that that would mean direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, with countries in the international community that are involved directly having an overview and doing their best to bring about a final agreement.

As the Minister will tell us, the Quartet is meeting today in New York. I hope that it will reach the same conclusions as the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It is a coincidence that the last debate that occurred here on Thursday was on the same subject that we are discussing today. It concerned the report of the International Development Committee. At least one hon. Member who is present today took part in that discussion and I heard at least half the debate myself.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park) (LD)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to our debate on Thursday, in which I took part. Does he share my great disappointment that on an issue of such magnitude—of importance not only to Israelis and Palestinians, but to the peace of the world—we are confined to short debates in Westminster Hall and not allowed a full debate in the main Chamber in Government time?

David Winnick

I agree with the hon. Lady about that, even if I do not agree with her about every aspect of the issue. I hope that we will have a debate in the Chamber as soon as possible, as that would be appropriate.

James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)

I agree. We should have such a debate. I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments. He does not disagree with the substance of what is being proposed, but thinks that it does not go far enough in respect of withdrawal from the west bank and other matters. Given Likud's rejection of the plan over the weekend, does he agree that there is now an opportunity for Israel to develop proposals that go further—perhaps on a cross-party basis—so that the road map can be put back on track?

David Winnick

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, if I were optimistic that General Sharon and the Likud party would go along with such a proposal, I would have a different view than I have at the moment. I do not believe that what was put forward by the Israeli Government and endorsed by President Bush was meant to lead to a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, which I hope is the policy of the British Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. I said that Sharon and the Likud party do not want to go along that route; Sharon would argue that he was not elected to create a viable—I emphasise "viable"—and sovereign Palestinian state. What was intended was not a first step, no matter what gloss was put on it by President Bush. It was to a large extent a step towards evacuating the Gaza strip and leaving it at that. The fact that the Likud party rejected that policy again illustrates the sort of the political party involved and the intense lobbying of the settlers.

The plight and poverty of Palestinians in the occupied territories was the subject of a previous debate here. Among other things, the International Development Committee report stated that the rate of malnutrition in Gaza and in parts of the west bank was as bad as anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. The unemployment rate among the Palestinians is around 60 to 70 per cent. Just imagine what it must be like to have such mass unemployment, and the devastating effect that that is bound to have on families. We should not forget that, day in and day out, the Palestinians are subject to 24-hour curfews and denied freedom of movement, and that their lives are controlled in every conceivable way, even when they try to take close relatives to hospital, which, as the report points out, presents tremendous difficulties.

It does not take a great deal of imagination to imagine ourselves subject to such occupation and the restrictions and controls that I have mentioned. In those circumstances, is it any wonder that there is such a feeling of despair and dismay among Palestinians, including among those who reject violence, as we all do, and who put their faith in a political solution and who try to persuade other Palestinians that violence is not the way? What are they likely to say after President Bush's endorsement of Sharon's plans? Then there is the security fence, which Israel says is for its own security. However, 90 per cent. of it is being built on Palestinian land—not Israeli land, but Palestinian land.

Sometimes there is misunderstanding in debates such as these. Let me say where I stand on Israel. I came to the conclusion at a rather tender age in 1948—this shows my age, I suppose—that a Jewish state was justified, given what had happened to the Jews for some 2,000 years, and not just during the last war. They had been demonised, persecuted, tortured and mass murdered. Undoubtedly, that led in many respects to the basis on which the Nazis were able to carry out their terrifying crimes against humanity. Jewish people—men, women, children, even babes in arms—were exterminated in the camps on the Russian front and in other places. As a non-Zionist, I came to the conclusion that a Jewish state was justified in those circumstances.

Linda Perham (Ilford, North) (Lab)

I am glad that my hon. Friend has taken time to talk about the suffering of the Jewish people and his support for the foundation of the state of Israel. Does he not agree that it is the very need for security that leads the Israeli Government to take the actions that they have and to resort to building a fence? Jewish people in Israel also have fears about suicide bombers.

David Winnick

I am coming to suicide bombers. My hon. Friend should not forget that the one issue, above all else, that Sharon campaigned on three years ago was that he would bring security to the people of Israel. More people have died in Israel as a result of his being Prime Minister. I would go further and say that the policies that he advocates and pursues have caused the deaths of many Palestinians—men, women and children, fellow human beings—who have as much right to live as anyone else, whether we are Jews or not. It could be argued that a number of Jews have died in Israel as a result of Sharon's very provocative policies.

If it is right for the Jews to have a state of their own, surely it is equally right and justified for the Palestinians to have a sovereign, viable state, because they have paid the price for the creation of Israel. They could argue that it was Europe's crimes, not those of Palestinians or Arabs, that were involved, but they have paid the price. Those of us who take the view that Israel has a right to exist in its pre-1967 borders and a right to defend itself nevertheless have even more responsibility to see to it that justice comes to the Palestinians. They should not be denied a proper, viable, state of their own; it should not be made up of bits and pieces, which would be rather meaningless. If Israel is a viable and sovereign state, the same should apply to Palestine; it should be no less sovereign than Israel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) mentioned suicide bombing, which I deplore and consider a particularly abhorrent form of violence. I deplore other forms of terrorist violence and I am not going to stand here and be a party to, or argue in favour of, any form of terrorist violence. I think that I am on record as opposing terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the rest speaks for itself. If I were to say, "but", that would not lead to any justification of such violence. However, we must bear in mind our colonial history.

For example, 118 years ago last month, the first Irish home rule Bill was defeated in the House of Commons despite all Gladstone's eloquence. That was the signal for some people in Ireland to come to the conclusion that violence was the only way to achieve their aims and for all that followed up until the first world war. If one closes the door to constitutional settlements and gives the feeling that there is no hope in the political process—as occurred with Britain in its colonial history in Ireland and in other places, and as is happening in Israel now—that encourages the people of violence. It encourages, as it must do, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, who reject any negotiated agreement with Israel—or at least they say they do. We do not know what would happen in other circumstances.

It is said that there are many volunteers to become suicide bombers. That might well be so, but I read a recent article about the first female suicide bomber and it did not show quite the picture that some would lead us to believe; she had been marginalised in Palestinian society and decided that that would be the way out. Nevertheless, the fact remains that suicide bombing is, obviously, to be deplored.

I started by saying that I had the greatest doubts and reservations about what Prime Minister Sharon, endorsed by President Bush, intended to do. We read in today's newspapers that, to win approval, he might even dilute those plans further. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, I hope that there will be a debate in the main Chamber. I hope that today's debate will lead to renewed demands from the democracies. certainly, from Britain, other European countries and also the United States—I referred to the letter from the former diplomats—for a total change of policy on Israel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North and others talk about security for Israel; the best and most effective security for that state is to bring about a viable and sovereign Palestinian state as soon as possible, not in the distant future. I am glad that the Minister is nodding. We need a change of policy, and I hope that we will put sufficient pressure on the United States, because it is one the country that can bring that about and that can ensure that what we all want, whatever differences we may have, will come about not in the distant future, but very shortly.

9.48 am

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate and on the passion with which he spoke. He referred to his commitment to the state of Israel and how he had come to the conclusion about the need for it. It seems that that commitment informs the passion with which he argued for a just solution in that part of the world.

What my hon. Friend said about Likud's rejection of the Sharon plan over the last few days provided a welcome perspective. There is going to be a tendency—perhaps, in some quarters, there already is—to portray those who campaigned against the Sharon plan as unreasonable and hard-line. I do not deny that they are, but that might lead to a tendency to portray the Sharon plan as reasonable. As Conal Urquhart perceptively said of Sharon in The Guardian yesterday: Following yesterday's defeat, he is likely to strike the pose of a statesman, claiming that he was elected to represent national interests not factional ones.

Nobody is going to argue that if Israel is offering to pull its settlers out of Gaza and to withdraw its forces from Gaza, it should not do so. If there is such an opportunity, it should be seized. We should insist that any withdrawal should be properly negotiated with the Palestinian Authority. The United Kingdom, the European Union and—I would argue—the United States too should assist the Palestinian Authority in the takeover. If Israel withdrew from Gaza, we should insist that the settlements and the infrastructure should not be trashed in the same way as has followed military withdrawals from parts of Gaza. such as the village of Beit Hanoun, in the past. We also need to insist that any withdrawal is real: the Palestinians should have a real ability to trade, they should have access to sea and to air, and they should be able to rebuild their airport in Gaza.

Gaza was not the only part of Sharon's plan: it came with strings attached. The strings are very clear in the west bank, which is equally as illegally occupied as Gaza. The strings said that the six settlement blocs on the west bank would remain, not for negotiation, but in Ariel Sharon's words, "for eternity." Extra funding for settlements in the west bank has been announced by the Government of Israel and the wall continues to be built—not on Israeli land or down the border, but deep inside Palestinian territory. There is a real danger that, over the coming days and weeks, those concerns will be lost in the debate over Likud's rejection of the Sharon plan.

Sharon is now saying that the plan may be modified. Rather than becoming what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described as an opportunity from which we can move forward, we might see a scenario developing in which as far as the Israeli Government—and perhaps the United States as well—are concerned, the Sharon plan is seen as a maximum from which negotiations are made downwards. That is not only wrong under international law, but a road to nowhere. It means that the dream of a viable Palestinian state, which, as my hon. Friend said, is absolutely crucial to a just peace in the middle east, will be all but impossible.

The problem with the Sharon plan and with President Bush's endorsement of it is that the Palestinians were entirely left out of the process. It is almost as if all that is needed is for the different factions in Israel to negotiate peace with each other, or perhaps for Israel to negotiate peace with the United States. The Palestinians have only a walk-on part in the whole affair, and that is why there has been such anger at the one-sidedness of President Bush's response to the plan.

We merely need to look at President Bush's statement and at the number of times that different things are referred to in it. I have had a quick look through, so the figures may not be entirely accurate but I think that they are roughly correct. He refers to peace 10 times in the statement; he refers to the two-state solution seven times; he refers to democracy and the state building of Palestine five times. Those things are good. He refers to security for both Palestinians and Israelis four times; he refers to security simply for Israelis seven times. He refers to security for Palestinians twice, and on both occasions the security for Palestinians is the security that they have to impose to fight terrorism and to maintain order in their own territories. There is nothing about security from Israel. He refers to terror or terrorism 15 times, all of which are in references to the Palestinians. He refers once to an obligation to cease armed activity, but that is imposed only on the Palestinians. He refers four times to settlements, or, as he puts it, population centres, and talks about the need to withdraw from all settlements in Gaza. There is one reference to withdrawing from "certain" settlements in the west bank, and another reference to making "progress" towards a freeze on settlements, including removing "unauthorised" outposts. One must wonder what the United States considers an authorised outpost in the west bank. There is nothing about the poverty, the destruction of homes, the razing of agricultural land, the destruction of shops or the land confiscations that the Select Committee on International Development so graphically described. Nor is there anything about the problems of access to health care, to water or to education that the Palestinians experience daily. That is going on to this day.

Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op)

My hon. Friend referred to the divisions among the Israelis and the fact that they could not agree. Does he accept that one reason why we have not made progress with the road map is that there is a substantial body on the Palestinian side, led by at least one organisation, that rejects Israel's right to exist, and that there will always be great difficulty so long as Hamas is as strong as it is in the Palestinian Authority, particularly in Gaza? Does he at least accept that the fault in this process is not all on one side?

Richard Burden

I have never argued that the fault is always on one side, but my hon. Friend should take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—namely, that if Sharon wants to encourage moderate and reasonable voices among the Palestinians, he is going about it in entirely the wrong way. He is actually strengthening voices on the other side.

I fully accept a two-state solution. Security for Israel is vital to a just settlement, but let us have some perspective. If we are saying that there are Palestinian forces that reject in principle the right of Israel to exist and to exist as a state, and that the peace process is blocked, which in many ways it is, why do not we say the same thing about forces in Israel that reject in principle the right of a Palestinian state to exist? Those forces in Israel are not fringe elements; they are in the Government. If we are to move on, we must move beyond excuses and ask how we can construct the right settlement for that part of the world. I do not dispute the suffering of the Israelis; it is real, and one feels it as one walks into any shopping centre in West Jerusalem or elsewhere. When Israeli children go to school on a bus or a teenage son or daughter goes to a disco, their parents wonder whether they will come back. That fear is real, and we must recognise it.

We saw another example of the suffering of Israelis the other day. Settlers should not be in the west bank, but no one could fail to be affected by seeing a mother gunned down with her children. Nothing justifies such actions, but we need to work out a solution if we are to end them rather than simply protesting about and condemning them. Avraham Burg, the former Speaker of the Knesset, put it very well last year when he said that Israel can choose democracy or it can choose occupation; it cannot have both.

We must face the fact that the west bank comes with 2.3 million people, and we should remember that Sharon's plan to deal with that problem of 2.3 million people is twofold. However, if Israel hangs on to that land with its 2.3 million people, and given that 20 per cent. of Israel's own population is non-Jewish, before too long there will be a non-Jewish majority in the historical land of Palestine, or, as extreme Zionists say, in the biblical land of Israel.

Sharon's response to that is part ethnic cleansing—ensuring that it is impossible for people to live in the area because of the impact of the wall and the use of such things as the planning laws in and around Jerusalem, which have, in effect, judaised large parts of the outskirts of Jerusalem—and part hustling Palestinians into what can be described only as Bantustans in the west bank and Gaza. The borders of the west bank and Gaza and access to water are all controlled by Israel. That is unacceptable. It is a recipe for further bloodshed. The only other option is to ensure, as Burg says, a complete withdrawal from the west bank and Gaza, and a viable Palestinian state. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North suggested.

Time is running out. Before too long, the settlements and the Israeli presence in the west bank will be irreversible. As Jeff Halper, the respected Israeli academic and commentator, said, it will not be much longer before Palestinians will start saying, "The future is for us to demand equal rights with Jews in the whole area." As he says, that will be the end of two things: one is Palestinian nationalism, the other Zionism. If we wish to see security for Israel as a Jewish state, the only way of achieving that is to have a viable and independent Palestinian state.

James Purnell

I fully agree that the destination has to be a viable two-state solution on a negotiated basis. In the short term, given the distrust between the two countries, I should be interested to know what my hon. Friend would do if he were in charge. Would his ideal solution be to move towards a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza or does he think there should be the possibility of a negotiated solution? Given that there is now an opportunity to look at these plans—the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)—how would he encourage the Israeli Government or the Israeli nation to move forward on this?

Richard Burden

I must not go on for too much longer because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. I was going to come on to what we should do. A negotiated settlement is there for the taking. Voices on the Palestinian side, such as the Palestinian Authority, have said that they want to negotiate. They recognised the state of Israel years ago. However, Israel must—the Quartet has a major role in facilitating this and I hope that it takes it on board today—get the road map back on track and insist that any viable settlement is based on international law and UN resolutions. That means that the Palestinians must end violence, and so must the Israelis. It means the withdrawal from settlements; it means the creation of a viable Palestinian state; and it means that Israel needs to reconsider the construction of a wall inside Palestinian territory.

There are voices in Israel who are talking about this too. We do them no service by muting their voices and going down the one-way cul de sac into which Sharon is leading the state of Israel, backed, unfortunately, by the United States. The road map is not the gift of the USA; it is the property of the international community. Britain has a real responsibility to ensure, with the Quartet, that the road map is put back on track.

Our Prime Minister has played a major role in trying to shift American policy on this issue. I applaud and welcome that. However, in response to Bush's statement, for example, it is not enough for us not to say the things that Bush said about endorsing Sharon. It is not enough not to say things. We need to say what we mean far more clearly. We want to see a viable Palestinian state. full withdrawal and respect for UN resolutions.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Kevin Hughes (in the Chair)

May I remind hon. Members that it is normal for the winding-up speeches to start at approximately 10.30 am? Three Members are indicating that they would like to speak. I leave it them to work out the maths.

10.3 am

Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC)

I take note of your point, Mr. Hughes, and I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate. I regret that it has been given this slot early on a Tuesday morning. I echo the calls made for a proper debate to be held in the main Chamber in Government time.

I recognise that some hon. Members have a long-standing, detailed and diligent interest in this matter. Plaid Cymru's position is quite clear and it is worth restating briefly. We support the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian state as a vital part of the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We also recognise the legitimate right of the Palestinians to self-determination and, importantly, Israel's right to live securely within borders that are recognised. As a Welsh nationalist, that is also my ambition for my country.

I fear that Israel's actions over many years and, particularly during the present intifada, are not defensive anti-terrorist measures, but rather a means to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian Authority. Israel's actions succeed only in bringing about a further escalation of violence and terrorism. That might appease the warmongers on both sides in the short term, but it is futile in the end. As the Bishop of Exeter says in his foreward to the excellent Christian Aid report, "Losing ground: Israel, poverty and the Palestinians": The Palestinian-Israeli situation today shows the futility of violence, where endless repression and resistance feed off each other. From this cycle of repression and violence, conflict and provocation. comes the bitter fruits of poverty. That report documents in detail the stark poverty in which millions of Palestinians live, with 60 to 70 per cent. living on less than$2 a day The report also identifies clearly the key structures creating that poverty.

I hardly need rehearse the detail of those points with the hon. Members who are present. However, it is worth noting some key features, such as the loss of land. Gradual encroachment since the six day war has led to 82.8 per cent. of Palestinian land being under Israeli military control, while the growth of settlements has led to almost 42 per cent. of the west bank being controlled by Israeli settlements and regional and municipal councils. The number of settlers has doubled to 200,000 since the Oslo peace process, excluding those in East Jerusalem.

The report also details Israeli control of water, which limits Palestinian irrigation for agriculture and personal consumption. It contains a telling quote from a farmer from near Ramallah: Often our water is not running and we have little to drink. Over the road, we see the sprinklers on the lawns of the Israeli settlements. That is inhuman and unacceptable. The report also details the effects of closure and curfew, with checkpoints and roadblocks, which make travel all but impossible and inflict psychological and economic damage. Lastly, and importantly, the report notes the lack of strong self-government and the failure of the Palestinian Authority to develop accountable institutions—a balanced report, I think.

No one imagines that progress from such a tragic situation will be simple. However, the steps that must be taken are clear, at least to us in Plaid Cymru and to many other hon. Members. Israeli forces should be withdrawn to positions held prior to the current intifada to allow humanitarian work to be carried out. There should be a full and negotiated withdrawal from the west bank and the Gaza strip, and a deployment of a UN peacekeeping force. There also needs to be a massive programme of reconstruction and rebuilding in the Palestinian territories. We in Plaid Cymru call on the European Union, as the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, to take the lead in this and to ensure that the new infrastructure meets the modern needs of the people in the Palestinian territories.

Israel must observe the UN resolutions to end illegal settlements in Palestine, not just withdraw from the Gaza strip on a unilateral basis. The west bank cannot be set aside as a separate and non-negotiable issue, and the Palestinians certainly cannot be excluded from the debate. Finally, Israel must halt the building over Palestinian territory of the separation wall, which does not respect the 1967 borders and only contributes to the climate of fear and distrust and to the further destruction of life for divided Palestinian communities.

My party opposed the war in Iraq, but the majority of hon. Members supported it, many on the basis of their expectations that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would receive the urgent attention of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments. I think that we are all bitterly disappointed, not only with the inattention of our Government, but with our apparent acquiescence with the Sharon Government's latest ploy and President Bush's endorsement of it. Let there be no mistake: strong and immediate action by the UK Government is the very least that we require to establish a proper settlement.

10.9 am

Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op)

I would like to take the Chamber back 11 years to the occasion on which the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shook hands in front of President Clinton. The Oslo process culminated in an agreement. In 1993, many of us had real hopes that, on the basis of that agreement, we would see a viable Palestinian state within three, four or five years and that Israel would be recognised by all its Arab neighbours and have secure borders. Those hopes have been cruelly dashed. I want to highlight some of the reasons why they have been dashed and how difficult the current situation is.

First, in 1995, extremist Israelis plotted to undermine the agreement and murdered Prime Minister Rabin. I was due to visit Israel that year with a joint Labour Friends of Israel and Labour Middle East Council delegation led by the party's then foreign affairs spokesman, Derek Fatchett, and with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) representing the two Labour party pressure groups, which were working together in support of the Oslo process. The visit was postponed because of the assassination.

Finally, in December 1995, we met Mr Peres, the acting Prime Minister. At that time the country was in mourning, and Mr Peres did what he thought was the decent thing by postponing the general election until the middle of 1996. What happened then? Palestinian extremists carried out terrorist bombings in Tel Aviv, and Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud won the election.

The whole process had been put back. Great efforts were made by President Clinton, and Netanyahu eventually—and reluctantly—came forward with the Wye Plantation agreement, which involved some Israeli withdrawals from places such as Hebron and Jericho. However, the reality was that that was grudging rather than wholehearted.

Another breakthrough offered further hope. There was a change of Government in Israel; Mr. Barak was elected. He came forward with radical proposals for withdrawals and a two-state solution. In 2000, the Camp David negotiations took place, and the two sides were very close to an agreement, but the Palestinians could not endorse it. Then, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount and the second intifada broke out. Some people claim that that was planned in July, and others say that it was spontaneous. However, regardless of the arguments, it happened.

That intifada is ongoing. I was in East Jerusalem during the first intifada in 1991. All the shops were shut, and the situation was very tense. However, the second intifada has been far more serious in its economic consequences for the Palestinian people and in its raising of the tension between the two sides. This intifada has become very violent, and has led to the current impasse.

Barak lost the election in 2001, despite going further even than at Camp David with the Taba proposals. There was no agreement on them. We can debate the reasons why: some relate to the west bank, others to different matters.

It is sad that every time there has been a proposal and we have got close to an agreement during the past decade, we end up having a great setback after that proposal has been rejected. Subsequent proposals, such as those that Sharon has just announced, are therefore far less significant than what Barak put on the table, or what was proposed at Camp David or the original Oslo process.

Sharon's own party has just voted by 59.5 per cent. to 31 per cent. to reject the current proposals. Many qualifications can be made, such as that the turnout was only 35 per cent. However, the reality is that the leader of the most right-wing Government that Israel has ever had is prepared to take things forward, albeit in a limited, inadequate way, and his plan is rejected by his own party. That is an indication of how violence and conflict breed polarisation, rejectionism and extremism. The same is happening on the Palestinian side. Hamas, which was a very small organisation, is now regarded as one of the dominant groups in Gaza and is much stronger than it was a decade ago.

I have always been a supporter of a two-state solution, but I see no immediate prospect of achieving one or, indeed, any solution in the current circumstances, unless there is some real, radical thinking about how we go forward.

David Winnick

My hon. Friend describes how the Likud membership has reacted, partly as a result of the violence and the rest of it. Would it not be right to say, however, that both sides use God without the slightest hesitation and that Likud members work on the basis that God gave the occupied territories of Judea and Samaria to Abraham and that, regardless of any violence by the other side, the land of greater Israel belongs to the Israelis and that none of it should, under any circumstances, be taken away from them? On the other side, the suicide bombers and the rest are the first to use God as an excuse. None of that gives any encouragement to non-believers such as me.

Mike Gapes

I am not Jewish and I cannot understand the history of the Jewish people in the way that my hon. Friend can. I simply say, however, that opinion polls show that the majority of Israelis—as opposed to the majority of Likud members—support the proposed withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the west bank and that, despite everything, they still believe in the concept of land for peace.

In that situation, the international community needs to find ways of moving the process back towards the road map, and I believe that that is what the Prime Minister was saying, although he has been misrepresented in publications such as The Independent, which one would expect to misrepresent a Labour Prime Minister—that is certainly what such publications always do on the middle east.

If there are obstacles in the road, one can either remove them or go round them. At present, progress on the road map is blocked because of a lack of trust on both sides, and we have already referred to the internal divisions on the Israeli and Palestinian sides. If one cannot secure a multinational agreement, one sometimes has to take independent or unilateral steps to move things forward and create new possibilities. The Prime Minister was right to take that position, but he has been completely and deliberately misunderstood by the 52 former diplomats.

In passing, I draw hon. Members' attention to the front page of today's edition of The Guardian, which has an interesting story about corruption in Saudi Arabia and about BAE Systems' expenditure in certain countries. I would be interested to know what Sir Andrew Green, as our former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, did to highlight corruption or women's rights or to push for democracy in the region when he was there. It seems some people have another agenda and have not really understood the importance of what we are trying to do internationally to take things forward.

This country is in a position to influence, to a limited extent, the prospects for peace in the middle east, but no one should have any illusions about the fact that we do not have the ability or the influence to impose a solution in the present situation. Even if it wished to, the United States, with all its economic, military and political power, could not impose a solution on the region. All we can do—Britain through its influence in the European Union and America through its influence with Israel—is try to shift the debate forward. Through the European Union, we must support the Palestinian institutions, especially their security authorities, to enable them to control the situation effectively and stop terrorist attacks from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other rejectionists. At the same time, we must continue our work towards transparency and the effective and efficient expenditure of resources to the Palestinian people.

Finally, we should do all that we can to work through the Quartet. Today's meeting in New York is important, but we must recognise that we should encourage Israelis not to be despondent after the Likud vote and to support those in Israel who understand the need to move forward and generate momentum, including those in the peace camp and the opposition labour party. We are faced with the prospect of despair and no movement. Forward steps must be taken. We need initial limited withdrawals followed by an all-encompassing comprehensive agreement that will ultimately lead to the establishment of the viable Palestinian state and the secure state of Israel—both recognised internationally—which the 1993 Oslo agreement was supposed to bring about.

10.21 am

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing this debate and echo the comments made by many hon. Members that we must have a full debate at the earliest opportunity in the main Chamber in Government time.

The question that anyone listening to this morning's debate will ask is, will the Palestinians ever be released from their misery? From my experiences of visiting the area, I will highlight a few of the causes of that misery. Some are easy to understand; they are said to be for security purposes only, but have an enormous effect on the lives of Palestinians. There are 662 checkpoints, controlling people's daily lives in an area that is not huge. We see horrific pictures of teenagers and young people being shot at for throwing stones. Water supplies are redirected, for all the right reasons I am assured. Olive groves and the associated economy are destroyed. There are extra-judicial assassinations. Many hon. Members and I have seen the demolition of homes. What kind of a world order allows such actions to continue?

In some respects, the problems represent a moral dilemma for many people. On the one side, we see state-of-the-art weapons supplied by the United States for security purposes. However, when people on the other side attempt to defend themselves with sticks and stones, they are deemed to be terrorists and shot. There are continuing and growing howls of protest from people all around the world. I agree that time is running out; for many years there has been nothing but escalation. However, I believe that the Quartet, which meets later today, has an opportunity to act. We do not need more words or commitments that condemn and make all the right noises, but do not lead to any plan of action or feeling that action will be taken.

Every now and again, there are major atrocities, but even they are forgotten. The name of the town of Jenin has become synonymous with an act that was condemned by everyone. We had thought that that might be a watershed, but it has been forgotten into history and there have been more incursions, lives lost, and people maimed and injured. Our response to the situation has been to condemn it, to regret it and to say that it has horrified us, but what have we done? Since Oslo, there have been the Wye River memorandum and the Mitchell report; many discussions have taken place here and in the United States and many commitments have been made, but there has been no firm action.

In March 2002, the Arab League had its own peace initiative, which was greatly praised by us and by the US, and we thought that there would be some progress. Alas, nothing happened. Then came the road map, which promised to end the terror and violence, normalize Palestinian life and build Palestinian Institutions by 2003. A second international conference was supposed to be convened by the Quartet by 2002. I do not think that there has been a first one yet. Inaction has been the hallmark of recent years. In February, the Palestinians took their case against the security fence—or wall or cage. whatever one calls it according to one's viewpoint—to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In a landmark hearing that, for the first time, brought Israeli crimes before an international tribunal, the chief of the Palestinian delegation said: This wall is not about security, it is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of Palestinian land".

Linda Perham

Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that Israel has a problem with security? He has spoken at length about the suffering of the Palestinians, but he must accept that the people of Israel need the opportunity to live in peace. They are constantly terrorised by Palestinian suicide bombings and other terrorist activities, and have a right to defend themselves. If Opposition Members are concerned about the time available for debate, perhaps they would care to call a debate in their time.

Mr. Breed

Clearly, there are those who have called for debates, and I hope that we shall have such opportunities.

Finally, can the Minister answer a brief question about the tribunal decision? It seems that the British Government, who had long supported the tribunal and had been critics of the wall, have chosen to join hands with the US and Israel in a stance against the jurisdiction of the international court. Can he explain the Government's position on that decision? In recent times, Israel's security needs, the positioning of the wall, its effect on the Palestinian people and the likelihood that it will lead to a peaceful situation have been subject to much debate. I hope that he is able to explain the Government's stance.

10.29 am

Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)

I am delighted to be able to participate in this short debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. In doing so, I highlight the fact that I am a member and co-treasurer of the Liberal Democrat middle east council.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). Like other participants in the debate, he spoke with great passion, but steered clear of being emotive. The debate has been stronger for that.

The wretched violence in the middle east continues. The latest estimates since the most recent uprising began suggest that nearly 3,000 Palestinians and nearly 1,000 Israelis have died. Pictures of the car in which an Israeli mother and her four daughters died are the latest in an appalling gallery of images of atrocities on both sides, which sicken the outside world. From a casual glance, it seems that there is little prospect of the region escaping the apparently never-ending spiral of violence.

There is a broad consensus about the need for a two-state solution to the situation, involving the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state and the recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure borders. There is no debate about that in this country these days. The Prime Minister has spoken passionately about the need for peace and an end to violence. It is just over a year since the Government fatefully linked the middle east peace process with the decision to go to war in Iraq. At about that time, the road map was finally published, but since then we appear to have entered an international political vacuum. Last week's riposte to the Government by former senior diplomats highlighted just how serious things have become.

In response to all that, Prime Minister Sharon of Israel stepped in to fill the breach by promoting the illegal wall and the disengagement plan, with its limited proposals to withdraw from Gaza. Instead of a negotiated settlement, Israel offers an unacceptable unilateralist position, which fails to deal with settlements in the west bank, denies Palestinians the prospect of returning to their homes, and ignores the need to return to pre-1967 borders. Perhaps we should be glad that Likud rejected the plan. but that would be to ignore the fact that even the limited positive progress on offer in Gaza was too much for the hard-liners in the Prime Minister's party.

The division in the Palestinian communities also contributes to the desperate situation. The Israelis are right to seek security for their citizens; it is appalling how many of them have died as a result of suicide bombings. They are right to highlight the inability of the Palestinian authorities to control the groups that promote violence from the west bank and the Gaza strip, but that cannot justify the extra-judicial assassination of two Hamas leaders in recent weeks or the threat to kill Mr. Arafat.

As long as the economic plight of the Palestinians continues, and is exacerbated by the restrictions and humiliations of everyday life, the Palestinian authorities will struggle to make progress. They need hope.

The impression has gained ground that everyone has been sitting around waiting for the United States to take the lead on the road map. The timetable now makes rather surreal reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) just highlighted. we should have nearly finished by now. Phase 1, which sought the end of terror and violence, the normalising of Palestinian life and the building of Palestinian institutions, should have been completed last May. The transition phase was scheduled for completion by last December. Phase 3. the movement to permanent status agreement and a full-time end to conflict, was due to be under way now. Instead, we are left arguing whether the disengagement plan is consistent with the process at all.

A meeting of the Quartet is taking place today in New York—and then what? It is surely time for the Government to make good their pledge to the people of Israel and the Palestinians. With their partners in the European Union, the Government need to demonstrate to both sides that there is no other serious prospect for peace than the road map. With our allies in the United States, we need to be resolute and prepare all parties to be firm and even-handed with both sides in the dispute. At present, the Quartet does not give the impression that it takes itself seriously. Until it does, we can expect very little progress and the agony will continue.

10.35 am

Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) (Con)

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate. I also agree with those who have said that the issue is one of the most important with which the House of Commons will ever have to grapple. Perhaps it is time for a full and proper debate on the Floor of the House.

The contribution from the hon. Gentleman demonstrated his experience and knowledge of the subject, and the speeches and interventions in this high-quality debate have shown that arguments continue on all sides. The subject ignites the passions of us all.

As to party politics, there is nothing between us on this difficult subject. We all want the same thing: a peaceful, long-term resolution. Those of us who travel widely in the Gulf and who have had dealings with people from backgrounds of all kinds in and around the war on terror recognise that it is not just for the sake of the Palestinians or the Israelis, but for a lasting peace in the middle east, and perhaps a long-term resolution to the war on terror, that we need a resolution to the Israel-Palestine problem. It is a stain on the map of the world and a catalyst for all kinds of reaction and over-reaction. It is a focal point and we are right to focus on it.

As is often said, it is not as though the solution to the difficulty is unknown. We all, I think, agree that there should be a two-state solution with a secure and strong Israel side by side with a secure, strong and viable Palestinian state—with agreement over borders, starting from the 1967 boundaries and negotiating on them; with agreement on right of return; and with agreement on shared arrangements over Jerusalem, and so on. That is a clear framework for resolution, which is perhaps unusual in a dispute of this kind. We need the parties to sit down again and work their way towards it.

The road map that was launched with such fanfare and optimism 12 months ago seems, sadly, to have been completely destroyed by an increase in violence—suicide bombings and the swift and robust responses to them. They have put paid to talks for the time being. I visited Israel in January and it was clear even then that the Israeli Government had lost patience with negotiations. They believed that there was no partner for peace, and a plan was emerging for some kind of unilateral disengagement, although at that stage the details were not known. They have become clearer since.

While I was there, I sensed on the Israeli side the fear of suicide bombings; there was real fear about going past a bus or sitting in a restaurant— and let us consider the plight of parents when their children go off to discos. On the other hand, there was real poverty, anguish and hopelessness in the Palestinian community. On visiting the country, I was aware of a sense of despair and thought that there must be more that we can do to resolve the issue.

Given what has been happening since January, we should remind ourselves that there is a broad base of political support in Israel for the kind of road map solutions that we have long supported. Will the Minister confirm today that—whether or not we now put another version of the disengagement plan on track—it can be only a start to a long-term resolution? We cannot impose a solution from the outside: an agreement on the final status issues must ultimately negotiated by all the parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our part is to get them to the table again to discuss and agree on those issues.

As has been said on many occasions over the weekend, we now have complete confusion over the Sharon plan, and where there is confusion and a vacuum something will rush in to fill it. Our job is to ensure that what rushes in to fill the vacuum is the international community with some fresh initiative. Does the Minister have a view on what part the killing of the 34-year-old mother and her four daughters played in the vote by Likud members? Is it not the case that no small groups—whether Palestinians or right-wing Israelis—should have a veto on the settlement? Is it not a sobering thought that the unilateral disengagement plan, about which many of us have profound reservations, was defeated in the vote not because it was too tough on the Palestinians, but because it gave away too much?

I want to put a number of questions to the Minister for him to answer in his winding-up speech, but first I shall read an extract of an e-mail from a Jewish friend who has relatives in Israel. He says: I repeat—the army is the last place on earth my brother in law wants his kids to be. They have no choice—because the leadership of those around do not want to live side by side and in peace. If they did—my second nephew will not be joining the army in the Summer—he could and should be heading off to university. Is it not the case that the vast majority of Israelis want peace and want a negotiated settlement? Does the Minister also agree with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu Ala, who said that the result of the poll at the weekend should act as an incentive to resume negotiations about Palestinian statehood"?

I should like the Minister, in his winding-up speech, to deal with five issues. First, what is the role of the Quartet? We have heard about the meeting today in New York. Was the Quartet consulted before the US endorsement of the Sharon peace plan? Was the UK consulted? Have we not learned the lesson of the Iraqi war—that we must take the international community with us? Is it not true that only pressure from the international community can bring both sides of this long-running dispute together? What is the Quartet's role in that process, and what message has the UK sent to the meeting today?

Secondly, on a viable Palestinian state, what do the UK Government understand by the word "viable"? We heard earlier that the Sharon plan did not include much withdrawal from the west bank. How small a state do the Government believe would not be viable? What do they say about the links between Gaza and the west bank? To what extent do the UK Government believe that we must take into account the new realities on the ground, as President Bush said, and with which the Prime Minister seemed to agree? What is our view of those new realities?

Thirdly, what does the Minister say is necessary to get back to the road map, and what is the UK Government's role in that? Given that, whether we like it or not, the US is the most powerful player in that process—although it is distracted by the November presidential elections—and given that the EU is not trusted in Israel, does not the UK have a significant role in trying to put this initiative back on track? What does the Minister understand that role to be?

Fourthly, we have heard from the Prime Minister in recent days that, if there were some kind of unilateral disengagement, the international community would pour in and help to build a viable state for the Palestinians. Is there a plan for that pouring in of international support? What role would the UK Government have in such a plan, and who will co-ordinate such support? What role will the Quartet have in that process?

Finally, do the UK Government see any real prospects that the Palestinian Authority, as currently led, can be a partner for peace? What is the Government's view of the emerging leadership within the Palestinian Authority? Do they believe that there has been a failure of leadership on the Palestinian side, even though the underlying injustice of the situation for Palestinians is clear? What is the Government view on giving support to the emerging leadership, and what are they doing to build capacity in the Palestinian Authority, which will be needed if there is to be a viable Palestinian state?

We all want the same thing—lasting peace in the middle east, if possible within our lifetimes. The debate is a further opportunity for the Government to tell us what role they can play in bringing that about.

10.45 am

The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on his powerful speech in opening this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke with great passion on an issue about which he cares deeply and on which he has spent a great deal of time as a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who has now left the Chamber, reminded us, in his role as chair of Labour Friends of Israel, that Israel also suffers from the lack of a peace settlement in the middle east. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) reminded us that Britain can influence the United States on the middle east peace process, but that we cannot control the superpower. We exercise our influence, but the US has its own policy and is the key player in encouraging a final peace settlement. It is therefore important that we bring our influence to bear, and we seek to do so.

The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) showed how myth and ignorance can sometimes inform some of the debate, and raised one particular issue that I shall address later.

In contrast to the view expressed by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I believe that there is little difference of opinion between the three main parties in the House on the desired result of a peace settlement—a two-state solution in which resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 are implemented. We want an Israel that is at peace and secure, and a Palestine that is independent and viable. I therefore believe that there is broad cross-party consensus—we all accept that the road map is the way forward to a peace settlement.

We have all been disappointed by the lack of progress on the road map in recent months. Political stalemate, the horrific cycle of violence and the humanitarian crisis continue. Since the beginning of the intifada in 2000, more than 3,000 Palestinians and more than 900 Israelis have been killed as a result of the conflict. The Israeli people live in fear of the next suicide bombing; meanwhile, targeted assassinations, which often result in casualties among innocent civilians, continue. The barrier is still being constructed on occupied land, cutting off people from their property, basic services and sometimes their families. There is a logjam in the peace process, and things show no sign of changing.

It is in that context that Prime Minister Sharon announced his intention to take unilateral action. On 14 April, he made public his plans to withdraw from all settlements in Gaza and some in the west hank. His plan also includes a substantial reduction in the Israeli military presence in those areas. The UK Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Quartet welcomed the move. Kofi Annan said: I believe that any initiative that is taken to influence this relationship should not preclude the future status issues which have to be settled between the parties and if what is being done is done in the context of the Quartet's Roadmap and the attempt of the international community to establish two States that is fine. The withdrawal from Gaza should be seen as a first step. The UK Government agree with that analysis.

The withdrawal of settlements is in line with Israel's road map commitments. It could bring visible benefits for the Palestinian people. If it is handled properly, it might provide the opportunity to breathe life back into the peace process. Those steps must not prejudge final-stage negotiations and must be integrated into the road map process. The Quartet is meeting today and we await the outcome. No one can seriously claim that resolving the issue will be easy or straightforward; there are many complex issues to be addressed, but we all share the common goal of a just and peaceful settlement, and we must make maximum use of the opportunity as a step towards achieving it. We must build on the Sharon formula to withdraw from parts of the west bank and all Gaza and see whether we can make that withdrawal the first step that can lead in due course to proper negotiations.

The proposed withdrawal is less than we would want. Prime Minister Sharon's plan does not envisage withdrawal from all settlements on the west bank, nor does it include full withdrawal from Gaza to include Palestinian control of the borders, the port and the airport. Full access to the outside world would certainly make a big difference to the prospects for Gaza's development and it could lead, as a first step, to a viable and more sovereign Palestinian state. However, we must not overlook the significance of the Sharon initiative. We have long been pressing for the dismantling of some settlements; the plan is therefore a first step. For that reason, it should be welcomed.

The Government share the eagerness of those who want the plan to be extended. We hope that Israel will consider handing over control of the port, airport and border in Gaza and, at a later stage, will also consider further withdrawals of settlements on the west bank. However, the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community must first commit themselves to making the initial step work. For its part, Israel must engage with the Palestinian Authority on the details of the plan, but we do not yet have a plan that is likely to be implemented, because Likud appears to have rejected the proposals in a vote—with fewer than 1 per cent. of the Israeli people apparently voting as part of Likud. We await the result of the discussion within the Israeli Government. We want to see what result it will produce and how Sharon proposes to proceed.

In the meantime, there are steps that Israel and the Palestinians could take. The Palestinians could stop the suicide bombings, which cause every peace process to be frustrated, and Israel should stop demolishing houses, imposing collective punishments and launching targeted assassinations. Equally, the Palestinians must demonstrate the will and the ability to run themselves if they manage to control parts of their territory. As the Prime Minister said in Washington on 16 April, the international community will have a crucial role in helping the Palestinian Authority to build their capacity. Britain, bilaterally, through its donations and donations through the European Union, is one of the main funders of the Palestinian Authority. We therefore have a particular influence in seeking to move the process forward. We should use that in trying to create the capacity within the Palestinian Authority to deal with some of the enormous economic, political and security issues that they must confront. However, responsibility for a constructive Palestinian response to proposals from the Israelis lies with the Palestinians themselves: the PA must become a credible governing body, capable of winning the confidence of the Palestinian people.

We wait to see what the Quartet decides today, and whether the meeting in New York has new proposals to take matters forward. We have been closely engaged in private discussions On how that can be done, and I look forward to the international community regaining political momentum. We should also provide the necessary support to enable the international community to work with us, with the Israelis and with the Palestinians to gain that momentum.

The United Kingdom continues to support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to improve their effectiveness in dealing with security in some areas in which they operate. We will continue to provide the advice, assistance and equipment that they need to deliver their objectives. We have had some encouraging results, and we will continue to work with Palestinian leaders. When I spoke to Yasser Arafat, he was very grateful for the work that the UK was doing to help the Palestinians to create the capacity in their Government and system to enable them to deliver when they have proper control of their own territory.

The letter written by 52 retired ambassadors to the Prime Minister was in many ways a cry of frustration that things are not moving in the middle east as quickly as we would all like. We all share the frustration of the slowness of achieving peace. Whether a retired ambassador, British Minister or American politician, we all want progress. Oddly, the ex ambassadors claim that our policy has changed seems to be the basis of their letter. Let me make it clear that our policy continues to be based on UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. We want two states: an Israel secure and at peace, and a Palestine viable and sovereign. Final-stage negotiations, including on the settlements and right of return, are just that. They cannot be prejudged at this stage.

Britain has a vested interest in the middle east, and let me make it clear that it is in securing peace. We see the Sharon proposals as a first step, not a final one. The retired ambassadors advocate a poky of creating two states in the middle east. We agree with that, and I was not sure what the difference between us was, having read their letter. As I said, it seems to be based on the false premise that we have changed a policy that has not changed. Britain has that vested interest in the middle east, and it is a substantial one.

Richard Burden

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien

Given the time and the points that I want to make, I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not.

The running sore of the failure to achieve a Palestinian state fuels extremism throughout the middle east. Creating peace would not only remove a great sense of injustice, but show that Europe and the United States have helped to end the injustice. We have a vested interest in reducing international terrorism, and achieving peace in the middle east is one of a number of steps that will assist the fight against terrorism. In the end, peace will also benefit Israel. The best long-term guarantee of a peaceful Israel is the creation of a stable, viable Palestinian state. As most Israelis know, peace is the only long-term guarantee of the security of Israel.

Let us be clear about the fact that both the Palestinians and Israelis have suffered. During my visit to Israel, I went to a hotel where I had had a coffee a couple of years ago on holiday. Only weeks before, the main hall of that hotel had been subjected to a Palestinian suicide bombing while a wedding had been taking place and about 20 people were killed. Standing in that hall, where I had stood before in more pleasant times, brought home to me the devastation that the Israelis have suffered. Then visiting Yasser Arafat in the west bank also brought it home to me that children are unable to leave their gardens for fear of being shot. They fear that if they chase their ball into the street, they will end up with a bullet in their head. Those are the sorts of problem that both the Israelis and Palestinians face on a daily basis.

Our objectives must now be to get the peace process started again and to ensure that the Quartet plays a valuable role in encouraging a positive outcome from negotiations. In the end, the Israelis and Palestinians must decide the terms for the end of the dispute, but we believe that our policy of enabling them to reach that end, based on UN resolutions, is the best way forward.