Westminster Hall
Wednesday 27 June 2007
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
Abducted Israeli Soldiers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Steve McCabe.]
9.30 am
Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): May I say how pleased I am that we have the opportunity to discuss this important subject? This debate is timely, given that Monday was the one-year anniversary of the abduction in Gaza of Gilad Shalit; 12 July, next month, will be the one-year anniversary of the abduction of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
It is worth briefly explaining the background to both abductions. In the case of Gilad Shalit, members of a collective comprising people from Hamas, the popular resistance committees and the Army of Islam tunnelled their way from Gaza into Israel and engaged in conflict with Israeli soldiers. As a consequence, two Israelis were killed and four were wounded; Shalit was wounded in the shoulder, abducted and dragged through the tunnel back into the Gaza strip.
In the case of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, members of Hezbollah crossed from southern Lebanon into northern Israel and fought with an Israeli military patrol. As a consequence, three Israelis were killed and one was wounded; Goldwasser and Regev were abducted and taken across the Lebanon border. Shortly after, four more Israelis were killed in an aborted rescue attempt. The full extent of Goldwasser’s and Regev’s injuries is not known, but it is believed that one was in a critical condition and the other was seriously wounded.
That chain of events, particularly the kidnapping of the latter two soldiers, led to the recent 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon. That war had dramatic consequences: 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israeli people died, countless others were injured and there was billions of pounds’ worth of destruction to homes, roads, infrastructure, factories and the like.
We all accept that the conflict in and around the state of Israel has been going on for decades—indeed, since its very establishment in 1948. I am sure that some would argue that the conflict had been going on for many centuries before then. Not a week goes by without a new story of death or destruction of some kind in the middle east—so much so that we are almost immune to the massive suffering, misery and tragedy that daily affects so many.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although it is certainly true that the kidnapping of the two soldiers was the spark that led to the war with Lebanon, the underlying reason for the war was Hezbollah’s build-up of arms, which were taken into Lebanon with the support of Iran and Syria?
Mr. Vara: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. A number of factors led to the conflict, but it is fair to say that the Israelis revealed in an internal report that they were expecting an attack involving an attempt to abduct soldiers; they were therefore particularly trying to avoid that scenario. However, a number of issues are involved in this complex matter in the middle east.
The suffering and tragedy to which I referred were recently brought home to me and some present in the Chamber today during our recent visit to the state of Israel, when we saw at first hand some of the reasons for the conflict. One of the things that moved me immensely was meeting the parents and relatives of the three abducted soldiers. I will never forget the words of Miki Goldwasser, mother of Ehud: she said that when she eats, she thinks about whether her son is having any food, and if so, what food; and that when she goes to sleep at night, she wonders whether her son has any cover, and if he does and it falls off, whether there is anyone to cover him again.
The situation in the middle east is a volatile mixture, full of high tensions. The issue of the prisoners remains emotive for all concerned—Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian—and it is at the very heart of the current crisis in the area. I make it absolutely clear: I am not saying for one moment that the release of the prisoners will solve all the problems; far from it. However, I am saying that the current tensions may well be lessened if the prisoners are released. The arguments for release are humanitarian and born of a genuine belief that the release would ease some of the tensions that simmer with deadly effect in the area.
It is also tragic that although there has been evidence that Shalit is alive—most notably, the release of the audio tape earlier this week, on the anniversary of his abduction—there has been no such indication as far as Goldwasser and Regev are concerned. The position is probably best summed up by Karnit Goldwasser, wife of Ehud, who said last November in an article in The Sunday Times:
“I am asking all who are helping with the Lebanese reconstruction to help us get a sign of life, a letter from him, or even better, a visit from an intermediary which would encourage him so much...So far we have had nothing.”
Perhaps, in the context of this debate, it is also worth mentioning the names of six other people, five of whom are Israelis: Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz have been missing since July 1982, Ron Arad has been missing since October 1986 and Guy Hever since August 1997. All five are listed by the Israeli authorities as missing in action. Although over the years there has been some indication that some of the men may be alive, to this day there has been no conclusive evidence confirming their true fate.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is giving a moving account of the Israeli prisoners who have been held elsewhere in Gaza and Lebanon, and particularly of the pain of their parents.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to respond to this question. He said that the release of prisoners would help reduce tension. Does he also see that releasing rather more of the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel—250 releases have been announced, but that is
not many against 10,000—would also go some way towards releasing tension? Given that about 20 per cent. of the adult Palestinian population have been detained by Israel since 1997, making progress on Palestinian prisoners as well as on Israeli prisoners would certainly help reduce tension in the area.
Mr. Vara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. A little later, he will note that I talk about prisoner exchange. However, UN resolution 1701, unanimously passed, calls for the unconditional release of the Israeli prisoners.
Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main differences is that Palestinian terrorists being held by the state of Israel can all be visited by their families, and that those families know where they are, that they are safe, and that they are being fed? Perhaps some of the terrorist organisations might consider giving the same benefit to Israeli hostages.
Mr. Vara: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, for which I am grateful. The people concerned are human beings with families, and one would have thought that, no matter how much hatred and bitterness there might be in the conflict, it should be possible to provide basic information to families that their loved ones are alive and safe despite being kept as prisoners. Let me add that I know my hon. Friend to have been a doughty campaigner in the cause, and I give him due credit for that.
I mentioned five Israeli names, but we must not forget a sixth name—that of our own BBC reporter, Alan Johnston, who remains a captive in Gaza. Although we have evidence that he is alive, I feel sure that the whole House would rather have seen pictures of him without the belt full of deadly explosives strapped around his body.
To return to the Israeli soldiers, there has been comment about a possible prisoner exchange between the conflicting sides, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It is fair to say, however, that there has been a more vocal conversation on a possible exchange for Gilad Shalit than for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. There is clearly a deal to be made; deals have happened in the past, and it is to be hoped that they can happen again. It seems that the issue is in deciding the precise number of people to be exchanged, as well as the categories of those people.
I know that the British Government have made efforts to secure the release of the Israeli soldiers. Will the Minister enlighten us, however, as to what precisely has been done and to what extent? For example, with which individuals and Governments has contact been made to try to bring pressure on the captors?
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con):
I was in Israel last week, and I saw the exact spot where the abduction of the two soldiers took place. My hon. Friend is addressing the important matter of Britain’s role, on which I am sure the Minister will want to respond. Given the not always entirely satisfactory role
that we have played in the past—that of special envoy—does my hon. Friend agree that a country such as Turkey, which has excellent relationships with both Israel and the Arab countries, could be deployed in the role of envoy? He and the Minister might like to comment on whether there are efforts to encourage the Turks, with their special credibility in the region, to deal with the tragic human situation that he is describing so vividly.
Mr. Vara: My hon. Friend makes a point that is very valid in the context of the conflict. I have always believed that, when enmity has existed between two sides for a long period, it is often intermediaries who bring about peace. In the present context, Turkey is certainly a player with whom we ought to be speaking, as are some of the other people with whom we have been speaking for many years. Turkey ought certainly to be given appropriate attention, given that all sides have respect for that country, and given its possible role in achieving change in the region.
Will the Minister also say whether external organisations such as Amnesty International or the International Committee of the Red Cross have been contacted by the British Government? In his summing up, I very much hope that the Minister will say not only that appropriate pressure has been exerted by the British Government, but that our Government will continue to exert that pressure, because the tragedy is ongoing.
Our Prime Minister will today be stepping down, and as it is widely reported that he might well take on the role of middle east peace envoy, it is right that we should wish him well if he should indeed take on that role. Our good wishes go to him.
There are many people in the Chamber who wish to speak, and time is limited. Let me conclude, therefore, by urging the Minister to do all that he can to obtain the release of the hostages and to ease the tension in the middle east.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. I intend to call the Front Bench spokesmen from 10.30 am. On a quick assessment of the hon. Members who just rose, six Members wish to speak. I should be grateful if hon. Members on both sides would take cognisance of that and bear in mind the desire of others to speak.
9.45 am
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on securing the debate, which is an important one, because it is vital that the names of the kidnapped and missing soldiers are not forgotten. Attention should be drawn to both humanitarian and political aspects of what has happened.
No one could fail to be both moved and deeply concerned by the kidnapping of the soldiers Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser and Gilad Shalit. In the case of Gilad Shalit, there is some information and knowledge that he is still alive, and there have been some attempts by the Egyptians to mediate in securing
his release, but it is particularly tragic that there is little, if any, information about the condition of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. I have listened carefully to the comments that the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made about his meetings in Israel and his meetings with the families of the missing soldiers. I, too, met some of their families—both here, in the House of Commons, and at a major rally that was held in Albert square in Manchester last year. It is impossible not to be moved by the anguish of what we hear.
It is important for everyone to recognise that behind what has happened is a complex political situation in which the rule of law does not operate. Only at the beginning of this month, there was yet another attempt by Islamic Jihad to kidnap more Israeli soldiers across the border from Gaza. That attempt was foiled, but it is clear that kidnap is being used as a weapon of war despite not being part of normal politics and government—an indication of the breakdown of political society in the Palestinian Authority.
I am not sure that enough attention has been paid to the fact that international norms have been simply ignored in relation to the kidnappings. The Geneva convention has been broken, and access and information have been denied. It is important that international organisations as well as governmental institutions take note of that, and make their protests loudly.
It is impossible, too, to ignore the impact of other players on what occurred. I refer particularly to the roles of Syria and Iran—not just in relation to the kidnappings but in the failure to resolve them, free the soldiers, and release information about them. I fear that, in order to solve the problems, there needs to be a resolution that might well be based not only on negotiated prisoner exchanges but on the co-operation of Syria and Iran, whose proxies are holding the soldiers and refusing to address humanitarian concerns.
During the past week or two, the political situation in Gaza has changed. We might be experiencing a new crisis, but with that new crisis might perhaps come new opportunities. I hope that all efforts will be made by this country, which has indeed been making great efforts to get information about the missing soldiers, and international bodies, to find out what has happened to those soldiers, secure their release and end the anguish of their families, who wonder every minute of every day what has happened to their loved ones.
9.50 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on securing the debate. He, I and some others went to Israel about a month ago, and in the course of that visit we had an opportunity to meet the parents and relatives of the three abducted soldiers. It prompted all of us to seek an Adjournment debate, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate. He set out the background fully, and I do not wish to repeat it. It is all common ground.
The situation in Israel, on both the Palestinian question and its relations with adjoining Arab states, is
immensely difficult. The difficulties are not one-sided, and everybody in the House accepts that anyone looking back over the past 40 years can see that mistakes and wrongs have been committed on all sides. Finding a way to a satisfactory and peaceful solution is a priority for all of us in Europe, and certainly in this country, as well as for many countries in the middle east.
In the course of the conflict there has been much violence. The point has reasonably been made that large numbers of people are held prisoner by the Israelis because of the belief and fear that they have participated in violence. That cannot detract from the evil that comes from hostage taking, which is a completely separate and discrete issue because it is contrary to every humane norm. What is happening cannot be dressed up with legitimacy even by saying that the aim is to take prisoners from the other side. It is a terror device: by removing people and concealing from others their whereabouts, state of health and fate, one country can try to exercise leverage over another. All right-thinking people view that with the utmost disgust.
That is what has happened in the case of the three soldiers. My hon. Friend made the point that, in the case of the two abducted by Hezbollah on the Lebanese border, we do not even know whether they are alive: one or both of them may have succumbed to the injuries that they appear to have sustained at the time of their capture. That makes it doubly reprehensible that there is no information about their whereabouts or fate.
There have been examples close to home, in Northern Ireland, of individuals who have disappeared and whose fate has never been ascertained. In recent years the fate of one or two has been ascertained and their bodies recovered. Denying relatives knowledge of the fate of those they love is one of the most corrosive things that can be done in human relations. How it could contribute to any equitable settlement of a difficult conflict is incomprehensible to all rational people.
The reason for the debate is not to pass a wide judgment on the difficulties of reaching peace in the middle east, the apparent meltdown into anarchy of Gaza or whether the Israelis have handled their relations with the Palestinian Authority sensibly, or vice versa, in the past five years. It is to remind people of the fate of the three young men, to reiterate the demand for information on them, which would go a long way towards curing the pain that their relatives suffer as a result of their abductions, and to reiterate that the abductions were unacceptable behaviour that cannot help to achieve long-term peace.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the British Government have been doing, although I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that Britain may well not be best placed to intervene and that other countries in the middle east, such as Turkey, could do so better.
An aspect of the case touched on by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is that to imagine that such abductions and acts of terrorism take place in isolation is wrong. There is clear evidence that other states sponsor and countenance terrorism. After all, the abduction of British naval personnel in
Shatt al-Arab was in many ways of the same nature and quality as what happens elsewhere in the middle east, although fortunately with a rapid ending. The unacceptability of that behaviour is just as clear, so the Government’s ability to make the point forcefully to sovereign states may contribute to bringing such activity to an end.
I do not seek to pass judgment on difficult areas of conflict, but I call for a common humanity. At the moment that is singularly lacking from those who abducted these three young men.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |