---

The Prime Minister: Our position remains entirely as we have set it out before. In respect of the security fence, I say absolutely unequivocally that it must not become part of a political settlement. The Foreign Secretary and I, and others, have made that position very clear. I simply repeat, however, that if such a disengagement from Gaza and parts of the west bank happens—including, incidentally, the removal of some 7,000 settlers from Gaza—it is important that the Palestinian Authority be able to step into that breach. That is the only point that I am making. We do not alter our position at all on the substance of the matter. The question will ultimately be, as it is with all such peace processes, whether people want to carry on making their statements, or whether they want to try to establish a different reality. That different reality must begin with the disengagement being followed by a process of reconstruction.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): The Prime Minister said in his statement that the final settlement in the middle east cannot ignore the reality on the ground. Is it not the case that the reality behind Prime Minister Sharon's latest announcement, coupled with the ongoing building of the security wall, is that the Israeli Government are bent on a de facto annexation of significant parts of the west bank? Given that such a policy is both illegal and contrary to the road map, why is the Prime Minister going along with it?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that I do not believe that the security fence can be used to annex territory. I want to make one other point, which it is fair to make, or we could end up, as is often in such situations, with an entirely one-sided debate. Even as we condemn the targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders, we should not forget that innocent Israeli citizens have died in large numbers as a result of terrorist acts in Israel—not in the occupied territories, incidentally, but in Israel itself. Obviously, any
 
19 Apr 2004 : Column 30
 
Government—particularly a democratic Government, as in Israel—will want to take measures to protect their citizens. I do not resile from anything I have said about this, but one of the problems with the situation is that people always see one particular point of view. There are two lots of suffering in this case and both must be dealt with.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): Is not the unpalatable truth that an occupying coalition force, far from curtailing violence, is seen more and more as an inspiration for it? Have not we reached a situation where many Iraqis have come to regard this as a war of liberation? In those circumstances, there are some of us who think that Mr. Zapatero is right and that—embarrassing though the loss of face may be—the coalition forces should be withdrawn.

The Prime Minister: I do not deny for a single instant that the propaganda launched at the coalition is that we are an army of occupation that wants to stay there, irrespective of the views of the Iraqis, in order, on some days, to take their oil and, on other days, to occupy the country. That is the propaganda case that is being made. It happens to be false, as most people know and accept. The truth is that neither ourselves, the United States or any other country wants to remain a moment longer than is necessary to secure the conditions in which a proper political settlement can take place.

I say to my hon. Friend, whose very strong views on this subject I understand, that if we were to withdraw coalition troops now and leave Iraq to the mercy of militias, insurgents and outside terrorists, the losers would not just be the whole of the middle east—the whole world, actually—but, most of all, the Iraqi people. Were he to talk to anyone in the British sector at Basra, he would know that, of course, the vast majority of Iraqis do not want their country to be occupied, but they want to make sure that when the occupation leaves, what takes over is the democratic will of the Iraqi people and not the will of extremists, fanatics and those who would take Iraq backwards.

Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): In the middle east peace process, we seem to be moving beyond the road map to the implementation of a settlement on the ground. I suggest to the Prime Minister that if we continue to pretend that the road map has life in it, or that the two parties under their present leaderships will negotiate a settlement to all of the issues, we will end up with a unilaterally imposed Israeli settlement on the ground. We ought to get the Quartet, at its meeting next month, to grab control of the issue, to attempt to develop a settlement of all the outstanding issues in dialogue with the parties—but without seeking to get them together in direct negotiations—and to seek to impose that settlement. The alternative is not the road map, but a unilaterally imposed Israeli settlement.

The Prime Minister: The Quartet can come to whatever decisions it wishes, but I do not think that the choice is the one that the hon. Gentleman poses. The reason we are not in the road map is perfectly simple—the basic security measures that are supposed to be taken under the road map have not yet been taken. All that I am saying is that we cannot be in a worse position
 
19 Apr 2004 : Column 31
 
if, when the disengagement from Gaza and the west bank takes place, we move in on an international basis to develop the security, economic and political infrastructure that the Palestinians need. If we fail to do that, and if there are those in Israel who want de facto and unilaterally to create a settlement, they will gain from the inability of the Palestinians to run their affairs within the territory that they will occupy. That is why it is so important that we seize the opportunity that the disengagement offers us. I agree that it is important that the Quartet is fully involved, but the Quartet is not going to be able to negotiate the final status. That is unrealistic.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the relationship between Israel and Palestine that he has just described is central, other states in the region have a role to play? Will he join me in urging Syria to play a constructive and credible part in what can be achieved in the region?

The Prime Minister: The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. Syria, I hope, along with other countries, will realise that its support of terrorism and any sponsorship of terrorism is preventing us from getting back to the road map.

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): The Prime Minister publicly justifies his own actions on the basis of UN resolutions and international law. On what basis does he believe that President Bush is entitled to cede Palestinian negotiating positions without their consent, and why does he think that unilaterally sanctioning illegal townships bang in the middle of the west bank is going to do anything other than destroy any chance of a viable Palestinian state?

The Prime Minister: President Bush made it clear several times—not just in the press conference with me, but in the one with Prime Minister Sharon—that, ultimately, these issues have to be decided by negotiation, and that remains the case. There are realities on the ground, and all the discussions that have taken place between the Israelis and the Palestinians throughout many peace processes have recognised that—but, ultimately, these things have to be decided in final status negotiations.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that while President Bush was appearing on the White House lawn with Prime Minister Sharon, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs was producing its weekly report on the situation in the occupied territories? It referred to further land confiscations, ambulances being turned away from checkpoints, more houses being demolished, and a nursery school in Nablus being closed when Israeli forces entered it. Does he therefore understand the anger that exists throughout the Arab world and beyond, and why Israel felt that it had been given a green light to continue with its illegal policy of targeted assassinations? Does he agree that if this development is to be an opportunity for
 
19 Apr 2004 : Column 32
 
the peace process and not a threat, we must recognise that the road map is not the gift of the US, that the Quartet must establish its authority, and that disengagement must be real and military, as well as involving the dismantling of settlements? Does he further agree that the international community must accept its responsibility for an international presence in that part of the world, to ensure peace with justice for both sides?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that I understand the anger that exists in the middle east and the Arab world about these issues. I also believe it essential that the Quartet play a role, and we will obviously have to discuss with the Palestinian Authority exactly what that role would be in security terms. However, in principle my view is that the more the international community can be involved in helping the Palestinian Authority to have—and, in a sense, guaranteeing that it has—the wherewithal to move forward from any unilateral disengagement by the Israelis from Gaza and parts of the west bank, the better.

That is precisely why I want there to be a meeting of the Quartet, hopefully in early May. At that meeting, we can put aside the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the past few days in terms of the statements made by America or Israel—or, indeed, by anyone else—and focus on what the Quartet can do to ensure that the Palestinian Authority can take advantage of unilateral disengagement, should it take place. It is worth pointing out that, had it not been for the other issues surrounding the announcement by the Israelis, much of the middle east would have welcomed in principle a unilateral disengagement from parts of the occupied territory.

---