| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give those details because the passage of time is so short. I can give an "of the order of" figure—I am not pretending that it is detailed. We have complained in writing, via the Presidency, to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Perez, expressing our concerns as regards the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. In that Presidency correspondence, the right is reserved to claim reparation for damage to EU-funded infrastructure and the estimate for damage to property funded by EU members states is 17.254 million euros. I know that that is not an entire answer to the question, which was a wider one, but I would stress that it is very early days in which to come to conclusions. Undoubtedly, from what one has seen with one's own eyes and from news reports, there has been substantial damage to material which has been funded by EU funds.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the only hope to an end to the tragedy for both sides is a return to negotiation and the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state which is prepared to live in peace with its Israeli neighbour? In that context, does he accept that those who negotiate must be both willing and able to deliver results? Does he consider, in that context, that Chairman Arafat's failure to control either the suicide bombings or the terrorism against civilians was because he could not stop it or he did not want to stop it? It must be one or the other.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have no definitive answer to which alternative is right. The fact is that the Prime Minister plainly reiterated in the Statement, which I repeated to your Lordships' House, that Arafat must demonstrate by actions, not
words, that he is willing to control the criminal acts carried out on nationals—often, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on innocent civilians, women and children included—by the suicide bombers. I agree with what was said earlier: that it is nothing to do with martyrdom; it is criminal murderous activity.I agreed entirely with my noble friend Lord Janner when he spoke about negotiation for a Palestine state. I believe that that echoes the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. There must be a guaranteed state of viability which is called the "Palestinian state". Equally, it has been a constant in governmental policy, ever since the foundation of the state of Israel, that the safety and security of the state of Israel is also necessary. It is not capable of being negotiated away and, in my opinion, not capable of being questioned.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will not my noble friend—the noble and learned Lord, rather, even though he is my friend—accept that terrorism does work? That is a very unattractive comment to make. It worked in Ireland in 1922; it worked in Kenya; and it worked in Nairobi. Above all, it worked to establish the state of Israel which was established by the forcible eviction of 1 million people from Palestine, started by the Dir Yassin massacre where 258 women and children were killed by Menachem Begin and the Irgum Zwei Leumi.
Israel was invented on the basis of hanging British sergeants in an orange grove in Beersheba and blowing up the King David hotel, and it achieved its objective by terrorism. Unfortunately, that is the way of the world, unattractive though it may be. The Palestinians have given an undertaking that they will accept a state of Israel which they felt, originally, was a canker introduced into their country.
We have to deal with the facts as they are and the only thing that has made Colin Powell go to the Middle East is terrorism, as defined. We must not kid ourselves by saying that terrorism does not work. Unfortunately, it does. Unfortunately, spilling the blood of innocent women and children does work. We must not pretend that it does not, however unattractive that may be. We have to address the results of this terrorism and try to ensure that we can achieve, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, an established Palestine state. That must mean the dismantling of all settlements and a compromise over Jerusalem—and that is what the Palestinians have agreed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, recently I was in a troubled part of the United Kingdom and was reminded that there are two curses about memory. One is having a memory that is too long, and the other is having a memory that is too short. With all respect to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I believe that to focus one's attention on the destruction of the King David hotel more than half a century ago will not solve, or assist in solving, our present problems. The fact is that the state of Israel has an absolute right in international law—and, I would have thought, decency—to exist. The policy of Her Majesty's Government will always be to reiterate that and stand by Israel.
However, that cannot be a blank cheque for wrongdoing. If there has been activity which is unlawful, first, that must be criticised. Secondly, we must do our best to ensure that the sovereign government of a friendly state—namely, the state of Israel—are assisted in their present travails. Equally, those who live in what ought to be a state of Palestine have their individual rights. They have their rights in humanity; they have their rights under international law.
I think that we can both say that we are noble friends, but the noble Earl is being a little too simplistic by saying that terrorism works. That means the end of the rule of law and it means the end of the rule of international law. It means that the events of 11th September can be in some way justified or tolerated. I profoundly disagree.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear my noble and learned friend say that there would be recourse again to the United Nations Security Council to secure a resolution which firmly expresses the substance of the Saudi Arabian proposals. I assume that on this occasion the United States will support a resolution of the Security Council, unlike on many occasions in the past when it has not done so. Is there any indication at all that the Israelis would accept a future resolution of the Security Council, any more than they have accepted Security Council resolutions in the past?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot pretend to give definitive answers in a situation that is moving very rapidly; indeed, it is changing by the hour. However, what I can say is that I am grateful for my noble friend's support, not least bearing in mind his very substantial experience in the United Nations. I think that the Government are absolutely right to try to build on the Crown Prince Abdullah plan, and to give it validity, legality and authority through the United Nations Security Council. I believe that the Government of Israel ought to recognise that the future is longer than next week and is longer than a few days of military incursions. Actions will resonate far into the future. One should remember that the people killing innocents in Israel are themselves quite young people. They are people who have come to the conclusion that these are actions which they can justify. Occasionally one has to ask oneself what has brought them to this state.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, given what the Prime Minister and the noble and learned Lord have said this afternoon—wisely, I believe—and given that what we are seeing hour by hour is the Prime Minister of Israel and the Palestinian Government again testing to destruction the futile doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, is there not now a strong case for the United States and Europe, and perhaps the other members of the quartet, the United Nations and the Russians, to raise their ambitions? The United States in particular has a very powerful financial and political influence over Israel, which I have seen used
in the past—for example, in 1957—and more recently, while we all have influence over the neighbours of Israel. Instead, as has happened in the past, of focusing on a ceasefire—which perhaps could be achieved verbally with great difficulty but which we all know under the present circumstances would collapse after a week or two—is there not now something to be said for putting forward a European Union/United Nations/United States/Russian peace plan covering all the substantive issues? It would have to go rather deeper than the Saudi plan; I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about that. We could then use what in the past we have often been inhibited about using—I think in particular of the Americans here—that is, all our financial and political strength to press such a plan home.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the question of sanctions, which formed a part of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was not, so far as I am aware, discussed at Madrid. It seems to me that the question of United States muscle—I put that rather gracelessly in words not as finely tuned as those of the noble Lord—is a matter for the United States Government. However, I would say that it seems to me that the determination of President George W Bush appeared to be adamant: if he does not get a suitably proportionate response, then the answer lies within the power of the United States Government.
The United States has already stated at Madrid that it is ready to provide some monitoring presence. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is pressing Lebanon, Syria and Israel to respect the Blue Line. I take the point made by the noble Lord that a ceasefire is only for the moment and is not an answer to the long-term problem. But, as the Prime Minister has said, the situation is so grave and one of such crisis that we need to look immediately to a ceasefire and then to a longer term peaceful resolution on the basis of Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page