| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.54 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on his fine and instructive speech. I have no Arab or Jewish connections and I have no particular axe to grind, but I have both Arab and Israeli friends who feel very much as I do about the middle east peace process. Therefore, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate.
My friends and I care so much about this subject that, in 1993, in France, we opened a bottle of champagne and planted an olive tree to celebrate the Oslo accord.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Did the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex provide the champagne?
Dr. Tonge:
No, he did not. He was not with me at the time.
The Oslo accord enshrined the principles that should have led to the creation of a Palestinian state. It acknowledged
My olive tree survives and thrives, but the Oslo accord fell on stony ground--a product of the international community's turning a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinian peoples and a ringing endorsement of Israel's capacity to mock international law and agreements. How long can we stand by and watch Israel do that? New settlements have been built in east Jerusalem and, more recently, Israel's housing ministry spokesman, Mosh Eilat, announced that a further 30,000 new homes would be built in those settlements by 2020.
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove):
As the hon. Lady is talking about experiences, will she detail the times that she has travelled to Israel--as I have--and to Palestine to explore the issues at first hand?
Dr. Tonge:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I said at the beginning of my speech that I have no particular axe to grind. I am not a member of friends of Israel or friends of Palestine. I have--and will always have--a totally neutral point of view, but I believe that my views are entitled to be heard.
Those initiatives are contrary to the spirit of the Oslo accord.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
rose--
Dr. Tonge:
I shall not give way again.
The initiatives are also contrary to the principle of land for peace. They are, in essence, a reflection of an Israeli Government who are opposed to peace and who are determined to make a Palestinian state a pipe dream. We must ask how long we can allow them to continue.
The Palestinians are not the only ones to see their agreements broken. Israel recently broke its trade agreement with the European Union by exporting orange juice to Europe--it may sound quite amusing--labelled "Product of Israel" that was not an Israeli product. Israel also stands accused of exporting as products of Israel goods that are made in the settlements. Israel has violated an international agreement, the purpose of which was to strengthen economic development in order to underpin the peace process through economic growth and stability.
How long must Palestinians, Europeans, Americans, Israelis and all who are committed to the peace process endure the flagrant violation of international law by this and previous Israeli Governments? I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who said that we expect more of a democratically elected Government than we do of a dictator such as Saddam Hussein.
The latest United-States-bolstered piecemeal agreement regarding the further redeployment of Israeli troops from the occupied territories is bound to fail because it allows Israel to withdraw troops only once the Palestine National Authority have met all their security demands. That is another open invitation to Israel to place more and more exacting conditions on the PLA and, consequently, what is left of the peace process will continue to flounder.As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, it is difficult for political organisations to keep control of all their members and terrorists.
Mr. Dismore:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dr. Tonge:
No, I am about to finish, and then the hon. Gentleman can speak.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) for the debate. I am sorry that this is not the longer debate that the issue justifies, but I hope that we shall be able to have such a debate before too long.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this year is the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel; but for the Palestinian people it has been 50 years without human, political and civil rights, which all agree they should have.
There are huge implications if the peace process fails, not just for the region but for the relationships of the international community with the Arab world. That is true not least because of our historical involvement in the region and because of the role of the international community in relation to the Oslo accords, which were underwritten by the West. They should not be regarded as
the possession of Israel, from which Netanyahu can pick and choose. They were internationally underwritten agreements in the context of UN Security Council resolutions, especially resolutions 242 and 338, but also a long list of previous resolutions which, time and again, have emphasised the need for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories and for the political rights of the Palestinian people.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the parallels with Iraq. I do not want to compare the Iraqi and Israeli regimes, but it is important to recognise that people do see parallels. Sanctions against Iraq are justified on the ground that it does not comply with Security Council resolutions.
Mr. Caplin:
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Gerrard:
No, I only have a little time and I want to use the opportunity to say something.
Sanctions against Iraq are justified on the ground of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. Is it surprising that people draw parallels when Israel has a nuclear weapons programme and when Mordecai Vanunu, who exposed it, is entering his 12th year in solitary confinement in Ashkelon prison, and when Israel continues not to comply with Security Council resolutions?
I do not want to dwell on the question of settlements, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex and others talked at some length, or on what has happened in Jerusalem, whose status was supposed to be part of the final stages of the negotiations. Not only have Palestinians in occupied territories been affected, but the southern part of Lebanon is still occupied, and I cannot remember the last time there was any reference in the House to any sort of progress in negotiations between Israel and Syria. Within Israel, 70,000 Arabs live in 176 unrecognised villages with no basic services, water, sanitation or electricity. They are supposed to be Israeli citizens, yet they are denied basic services, with the clear intention of forcing them from their lands.
Before Netanyahu's recent visit to the United States, he visited an Israeli air force base to take delivery of the first two Fl5l fighter bombers to arrive. Hours before he left, the US announced a $1.4 billion loan for Israel, and that was before a visit that was billed as the US putting pressure on Israel. The clear message was that President Clinton did not have the stomach for a fight with Netanyahu and his allies in the American Congress.
I perfectly understand the points made by some hon. Members about the other side of the equation and the need for security. However, at a recent meeting, Yasser Arafat gave President Clinton a letter clearly detailing the specific articles of the Palestinian covenant that have been changed. It was read by James Rubin at a press briefing, and stated:
"the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
and recognised that Israel's armed forces must withdraw from occupied territories.
"The Palestinian National Council's resolution . . . in accordance with Article 33 of the Covenant, is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the PLO commitment to recognise and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect . . . These changes will be reflected in any official publication of the charter".
US policy is paralysed in terms of any real influence on Israeli policy, yet it is crystal clear that, without changes in Israeli policy, the peace process will fail.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |