| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I turn to the present situation. I have no doubt about Israel’s right to pursue terrorists who carry out acts of violence against it, whether from Gaza or by Hezbollah from Lebanon. In the current context there can beno doubt that the action of Hezbollah, which isan exclusively external terrorist organisation, was responsible for the beginning of this crisis and continues to light its fires. But Israel does not only have the right to pursue terrorists in order to protect its people. If a two-state solution is to be reached, Israelis must be confident that they will not find hostile states on their borders firing at will into Israel. Unless the Israeli Government of Ehud Olmert can show that withdrawal from the territories from which withdrawal must be made does not mean greater vulnerability, and that the terrorist challenge can be met, the two-state solution will be stillborn.
I do not question the action that Israel is taking against Hamas and Hezbollah. I do not gainsay Israel’s right to take proportionate action. But I am concerned and dismayed by what appears, to me at least, to be disproportionate action in Lebanon. Given modern intelligence and military technology, it must be possible to pursue terrorists on a surgical basis, knowing where the terrorist problem is and then rooting it out. We had to do that in our time in our own terrorist context; we did not blast communities on the basis that there might be terrorists there. It is absolutely essential that we say to our friends in Israel, who, after all, have one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world, that they, of all people, should be able to deal with this terrorist problem without creating a wider problem for those around them.
Nor, in
my view, is destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure acceptable. Not
only Lebanon but Israel and the rest of the world need a stable
Lebanon in the future. A ruined, impotent and bankrupt Lebanon is not
only a cause of despair to the people of Lebanon themselves; it becomes
a danger to the region, and beyond. If what is happening now creates a
failed state of Lebanon, it will be antagonistic to Israel and
distrustful of its wider friends, who did not help it
in its time of need. It will be a breeding ground for future
anti-Israeli sentiment and for anti-American resentment, and it will,
of necessity, be the ground from which the next generation of
terrorists will be born.
That is why the onslaught on Lebanon must now cease. I am happy to see precision attacks on the terrorists continue and I wish them well, because the right exists to root out that terrorism. But I have to say that I doubt whether an international stability force is a workable suggestion. Stability forces in conflict zones do not have a great record throughout history and we, on our side, should be very careful about claiming to support such a force when our own forces are so stretched between Iraq and Afghanistan that it is highly unlikely that we could even take part in it ourselves. We must therefore concentrate on those areas where we can at least be constructive.
I want the level of violence to be decreased. I hope that we can persuade the Government of Israel that the time has come to scale down—
Mr. Newmark: I draw my right hon. and learned Friend’s attention to the fact that since 12 July, 1,600 missiles have rained down on northern Israel—100 have done so in the past 24 hours alone—and that 1 million Israeli citizens are threatened. In addition to the UK and the US putting pressure on Israel, as he suggests, what pressure does he think could be put on Syria and Iran?
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, and I am just coming to the question of Syria. At the moment, it would be very difficult to persuade Iran to take a view different from the one that they are currently taking. But I have always believed that, through diplomatic pressure, Syria is open to changing the direction that it has been taking—wrongly, in my view—for so long. We can show the Syrians that there is a better future for them—if they change their ways and go down another path. That is something that the British Government should be doing.
The middle east is a vicious circle, and that circlewill not be broken in the flames of war; it can be dismantled only by a return to dialogue and negotiation. We should help to facilitate that, using the vast number of contacts that we have in Israel, Palestine and the rest of that region to get the dialogue going again. Building bridges is what we should all be about now—not destroying bridges, as we have seen happening over the past few days.
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): Is not the problem that the attacks by Hamas in Gaza, and by Hezbollah in Lebanon, were intended precisely to disrupt that negotiation and dialogue?
Mr.
Ancram: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I
say to him that we ourselves had experience of this in these lands. We
can pursue the terrorists individually, accurately and surgically,
rather than with the blunt weapons that are being used in the middle
east region. That is what we should be doing, to make sure that the
terrorists do not succeed in
disrupting the negotiations and dialogue that my right hon. Friend and I
believe are
necessary.
Mr. Love: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way once more.
Mr. Love: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept that one the issue that we still need to resolve is the outstanding dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Shabba farms? Until we resolve that, relations will not improve to the extent that we want.
Mr. Ancram: Right across the region, there are an enormous number of detailed problems that have to be resolved. They can be resolved only by negotiation, and not by military action, and that is why I am so intent on trying to get back to a position—however long it takes—where we can begin using words rather than bullets to achieve our purpose.
I want to mention briefly two other areas of crisis that affect us and which deserve to be raised today, given that we are not going to be here in this House for three months. The first is Iraq. For the past six months, I have been calling for our troops to be brought home. I know that it will not make me especially popular in the House, but I do so again today. I am full of admiration for what they have achieved, in the most difficult circumstances, over the past three years, but the situation is deteriorating and I am no longer sure what we can achieve by staying on.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con) rose—
Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way, as I would not get extra time for doing so.
John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Splendidly unselfish!
Dr. Julian Lewis: Such candour!
Mr. Ancram: When I say that our troops should return from Iraq, I am told that we would leave chaos behind us. That is a real fear, but I am worried that the deterioration of the situation means that the same case might be made in a year’s time, or three years’ time. The present difficulties now demand that we rethink our role in Iraq, and I hope that our troops will be brought home.
I take a totally different view, however, aboutthe equally difficult circumstances that obtain in Afghanistan. If we were to leave that country, we would leave not only chaos but the virtual certainly that a Taliban state would be restored. Such a state—once again and as its fundamentalist philosophy dictates—would allow itself to become a base for international Islamist terrorism. As we know, that would pose a direct threat to Britain, Europe, the US and all western nations.
I am concerned that we face very difficult circumstances in Afghanistan because our mission there is not clear enough and because the resources provided to it are not yet sufficient. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully over the summer what is needed to make sure that our mission there succeeds.
Our role in international affairs must not be based on romantic dreams of curing the world, nor on an unquestioning acceptance of US policy, but on realism and on what is in the British national interest. From what I have heard today, I cannot be certain that that is necessarily the Government’s position. I hope that, over the summer, they will make sure that it is their position by the autumn.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a significant number of hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye in this debate, in accordance with the order of the House of 26 October 2004 on shorter speeches, it has been decided that, between 5 o’clock and 5.30 pm, a time limit of three minutes will apply. I remind the House that, in the period of shorter speeches, no added time is allowed for interventions.
4.28 pm
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Let us set aside the morality of the situation—the wanton slaughter of hundreds of innocent Lebanese and the destruction of their infrastructure, the havoc caused by the Israeli army in Gaza and the kidnapping of half of the Palestinian Government, the murder of innocent Israelis and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Let us accept as a given that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organisations, and that the Israeli Government are dominated by right-wing thugs—unfortunately now augmented by the former peacenik leader of the Labour party who is in charge of the attacks on Lebanon.
Let us look instead at the undeniable facts. This is Israel’s fourth invasion of Lebanon, and none of the three previous invasions has been successful. The 1978 invasion was called Operation Peace in Galilee: is Galilee at peace today? The commander, Rafael Eitan, described the Litani Operation by saying, “We come, we kill, we go.” It did not achieve its objective. In 1982 I was with Israeli troops after they had invaded Lebanon. It was the first time that I had ever seen Israeli soldiers who were scared of the enemy—and I have been with Israeli soldiers from 1967 onwards. That war caused Sharon’s resignation and Begin’s resignation. It did not work, and this war will not work either. Already, Israeli troops are taking serious casualties on the ground and their commanders are warning that they cannot go on in this way.
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon is not simply immoral; it is futile. At the same time, Israel is facing an existential threat. A once-proud nation of pioneers and warriors who proclaimed that Jews would never again be confined in ghettos is now building an illegal wall behind which its people are cowering in a Jewish Israeli-made do-it-yourself ghetto. That is what is happening to Israel now.
Within a measurable period, Palestinians will outnumber Israelis. Unless there is a two-state solution, with two countries—one for the Palestinians—the Palestinians will be penned into bantustans directly adjacent to affluent illegal Jewish settlements. As in South Africa, this will become unviable for the Israeli state and the whole future of Israel as a viable state will be thrown into doubt. The only way of saving Israel—do not let us talk about the Palestinian interests, although I have championed them for many years—is a two-state solution.
Hezbollah and Hamas set out to cause chaos. That is what they are about, and they are achieving it. The Israeli Government and the United States Government are obliging Hamas and Hezbollah in the way they are approaching the situation. They are playing with fire. If Syria and Iran are drawn into the conflict, global repercussions will burgeon out of control, with an incalculable economic impact for the whole of the western developed world far worse than the oil shock of 1973, which, among other things, brought down the Heath Government.
Remember what happened to Jimmy Carter. He was brought down by Iran as President of the United States. Remember, too, that western meddling in the middle east ends again and again in tears. We are just commemorating the 50th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Suez by Britain and France in collusion with Israel.
There is a story of a scorpion approaching a frog on the banks of the River Jordan. The scorpion says to the frog, “Will you give me a ride on your back across the river?” The frog says, “Don’t be foolish, you will sting me and I will die.” The scorpion says to the frog, “Don’t you be foolish. If I sting you I will drown. That goes against all kinds of sense.” So the frog says to the scorpion, “Get on my back.” Half way across the river the scorpion stings the frog. The frog says, “What have you done? Now I will die and you will drown.” The scorpion says, “This is the middle east.” What we are seeing is futility on all sides in this conflict.
Those of us like me who have championed the state of Israel from before its foundation are filled with tears and shame at what an Israeli Government are doing to the Jewish people of Israel.
I have championed a Palestinian state since my first meetings with Yasser Arafat in Tunis. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) that Arafat made a profound error in rejecting the Barak offer at Camp David, but there is no point in repining. There is no point in saying that things should have been done differently. When I first visited Syria, I had a meeting with the vice-president in which he spent 40 minutes talking about the iniquities of the Zionists since the Balfour declaration. When he had finished, I said, “Yes, let’s take all that for granted, but that was then. What about today and what about tomorrow?”
Our
British Government have a role to play in trying to drill sense into
the Israeli Government and in trying to explain to the Palestinian
people that their best interests are not those championed by Hamas. But
let us be clear: America invaded Iraq—so we are told—to
bring democracy to the middle east, to get genuine elections. The
Palestinians held a genuine election, so are we saying that the only
acceptable genuine elections
in the middle east are those whose result is acceptable to George W.
Bush? If so, there will be few successful acceptable democratic
elections in the middle east.
I am more pessimistic about this situation than I have been in more than 40 years of involvement in the middle east. I do not believe that it helps the Israelis to give them a free hand. The duty of my right hon. Friends in the British Government, whom I have constantly supported and will continue to support, is to make it clear to the Israelis and to the Palestinians that compromise is essential. That is what I told Arafat when I first met him and I said it to him again and again.
Letting the Israeli dogs of war loose on Lebanon will solve nothing. It will undermine the existence of the state of Israel, it will kill more and more Israelis and the poor Palestinians at the bottom will continueto suffer. I look to our Government to try to do something to help us out of that mess.
4.37 pm
Mr. Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent) (Ind): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I shall take up as little time as I possibly can, because many Members want to speak.
I want to put on record my sincere thanks to the Speaker’s Office and all the House staff for their help and support over the past three weeks; their fairness and dedication is to be commended. I offer special thanks to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest(Dr. Taylor) for his support and friendship since I arrived in the House. I would apologise for the confusion caused by another David Davies enteringthe House, but we solved it amicably.
It is a great honour and privilege for me to represent the people of Blaenau Gwent at the highest level of politics, but it is also a humbling experience when I think about the hopes and expectations of my constituency for its future. I take this opportunity to pay my respects to my predecessor, Peter Law, a friend and a great political servant to Blaenau Gwent for more than 30 years. He followed the tradition in our area of producing people who were prepared to speak out for fairness and justice for all.
From the days of the Chartist riots, and through books such as “Rape of the Fair Country” and “The Citadel”, it can be seen that the south Wales valleys have played a significant part in the present structure of British politics and the way in which our communities are represented. Blaenau Gwent has proven that we take the people who elect us for granted at our peril. We must respect and care for our communities at all times and ensure that at all levels of government we give value for money. Do we believe that at this moment in time the general public would support a move to use taxpayers’ money to finance political elections?
We must never be afraid to talk
and listen to the people we represent and to encourage them to take a
full and active part in politics and the democratic representative
process. We should not be considering ways to force people to vote.
Instead, we should seek to find out why more and more people are
becoming disillusioned with the political process. If we are honest
with ourselves, we already know the answer. We must strengthen the
citizenship agenda for schools to encourage more young people to talk
about politics and learn the art of debate. Visits to this House would
be an inspiration to them all.
The problems and social needs of my constituency are not unique and have been the same for some years. Employment, health, education and community safety are at the top of the list, as I am sure they are across many areas of the country. We are all here for the same reason: to improve the standard of living and life chances of the people we represent. I have been a shop steward all my working life, giving a voice to those who needed help and support, and that is the role that I will play for the people of Blaenau Gwent. I believe that, as long as I carry out my duty with honesty, integrity, openness and accountability, I will continue to have their support.
The south Wales valleys have played a significant part in the social and economic development of this country from the industrial revolution to the present day, and the people of Blaenau Gwent want to continue to play their part in developing a strong and vibrant economy for future generations. One of the greatest opportunities for my constituency is the development of an integrated tourist industry across Blaenau Gwent and neighbouring areas. I am sure that the significant numbers of visitors who came to our area during the by-election, increasing our tourist trade considerably, would agree that we have an industrial history and a medical history that is second to none, and some of the most beautiful valley countryside in Britain. I hope that all Members would support us in establishing an attraction that would bring visitors from all over the world and provide much-needed employment for our area.
This afternoon’s debate on international affairs should take into account the role that our individual communities can play in this very important issue—primarily through education and the sharing of information. The involvement of our young people is important in considering international affairs. I had planned to make my maiden speech during the debate to establish a commissioner for older people in Wales, because over the past two months I have aged considerably and will probably have need of their help sooner rather than later. The intergenerational working in our communities is vital to any respect agenda. We are never too old or too young to learn from each other. Wales can lead the way with a commissioner for older people, working alongside the already appointed commissioner for young people. The investment in young people in terms of meaningful training and practical skills, as well as academic courses— perhaps with training involving a mixture of ages and of experience—is vital in creating real and lasting job opportunities and increased earning potential. We must ensure that areas of the country that receive European funding, and have a Community First process in place, maximise its potential for the benefit of our people.
The people of Blaenau Gwent
have suffered the loss of coal and steel industries in recent years,
but, as we have shown over the past two months, we are people
who care for our community. We had no party machine, only individuals
who wanted their voices heard and I would respectfully request that
those who believe that our by-election result was just an insignificant
protest should think again and heed the result—do not ignore
it.
I will do everything that I can to deliver thehopes, wishes and aspirations of the people in my constituency by following my principles of socialism, trade unionism, co-operation and family and Christian values. To add to the debate this afternoon, there was a phrase used many years ago—jaw-jaw not war-war. From what we have heard today, that is the way forward. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank all hon. Members for their patience.
4.44 pm
Mr. Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): May I begin by paying tribute to the fine maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies)? I, too, came to the House via a contentious by-election. It is two years to the week since Peter Mandelson resigned the Hartlepool seat—my life has never been the same since. The hon. Gentleman made a fine and spirited maiden speech and I wish him well during his time in the House. I also wish to pay tribute to the balanced statements that were made to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East on Monday and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and to the balanced speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in this debate.
The British Government are gravely concerned, as we all are, about the escalating crisis and the threat that it poses to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, to the wider middle east region and to British citizens in the region. The civilian casualties in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon are absolutely horrific. It is imperative that hostilities and violence from both sides end immediately to avoid the risk of losing further innocent lives.
The origins of the crisis are clear. The G8, following last week’s summit in St. Petersburg, stated:
“The immediate crisis results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace. In Gaza, elements of Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israeli territory and abducted an Israeli soldier. In Lebanon, Hizbollah, in violation of the Blue Line, attacked Israel from Lebanese territory and killed and captured Israeli soldiers, reversing the positive trends that began with the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, and undermining the democratically elected government of Prime Minister...Siniora...These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately halt their attacks.”
That analysis is also shared by Arab nations. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has used extraordinarily frank language to denounce the attacks. Its official news agency, SPA—the Saudi Press Agency—stated last week:
“A distinction must be made between legitimate resistance and uncalculated adventures undertaken by elements inside”—
“and those behind them without recourse to the legal authorities and consulting and coordinating with Arab nations...These elements should bear the responsibility for their irresponsible actions and they alone should end the crisis they have created.”
It said that the terrorist elements
“are exposing Arab nations and their gains to grave dangers without these nations having a say in the matter”.
The analysis and conclusions of the G8 and Saudi Arabia are absolutely correct. Since fighting began a matter of days ago, 1,600 Hezbollah rocket attacks have rained down on northern Israel. Some 29 Israelis have died in the past 10 days, including 15 civilians in rocket attacks. A million Israelis are permanently in bunkers and shelters, unable to work or go about their business. To be frank, it is surprising that the death count in Israel has not been a lot higher.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman balance his comments by accepting that 280 Lebanese have died, most of whom were civilian? The Israel defence forces have fired 654 artillery shells during this period and conducted 81 air strikes.
Mr. Wright: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come to the question of proportionality shortly.
Hezbollah fires rockets without specific targeting, regardless of whether they might hit civilians. Its aim is to kill as many people as possible. The delivery systems for the rockets are crude and largely inaccurate. I understand that a Hezbollah rocket actually hit Syria on Tuesday night, so ineffectual is the targeting capability.
Many people, including the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), have mentioned the need for proportionality in Israel’s response to the terrorist attacks. I absolutely agree about the need for proportionality, but is Israel meant to wait until Hezbollah improves the guidance systems on the rockets so that the death toll becomes much higher? There is criticism that Israel is wiping out the infrastructure of Lebanon and I will expand on that later on, if I may.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow, North) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that the attack on the Lebanese barracks that resulted in the death of 11 soldiers was disproportionate? Would that not justify the Lebanese Government defending themselves, if they saw fit, by attacking Israel?
Mr. Wright: I will come to attacks by Lebanon into Israel shortly. We should all recognise that Hezbollah is also trying to wreck Israel’s infrastructure—it is just that the means of achieving that effectively have not yet been reached.
Not all the
rockets that have been used are Katyushas, which have been the missiles
of choice for Hezbollah in recent years. Katyushas generally have a
range of 20 km. If they are fired from southern Lebanon, they are able
to hit northern Israeli towns, albeit with somewhat little precision.
However, the past few days have seen rockets fired deeper and deeper
into Israel. Haifa, Israel’s third-largest city, has come under
intense fire, and it has suffered some of the worst attacks in the
current crisis. On Sunday morning, for
example, Syrian-produced Fajr missiles hit Haifa, killing eight
maintenance workers at a train depot and injuring 53 others. This week,
Israel claims to have destroyed an Iranian-made missile—the
Zelzal—which has a range of about 200 km. Those
areominous developments. Terrorist groups, backed by
neighbouring states that have pledged to obliterate Israel and wipe it
off the face of the earth, appear to be close to having weapons that
threaten the security of most of Israel, including Tel Aviv, its major
financial centre.
I accept that Israel is bombing Lebanon, and let me make it clear that I want that to stop. However, the House must recognise that it would stop immediately if Hezbollah released the kidnapped soldiers and stopped the rocket attacks. That must be recognised in any discussion about proportionality.
Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wright: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to press on, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
It has been a fast-moving and dramatic year. There have been genuine prospects for peace in the middle east since the Israeli elections; indeed, I secured an Adjournment debate on that subject a few weeks ago. Despite the election of Hamas, there were encouraging signs that a two-state solution was moving closer. Mahmoud Abbas remained as Palestinian President and attempted to implement a civilising and moderate policy for the Palestinians. At the end of May, for example, he proposed an 18-point peace plan based on positions agreed by Palestinians in Israeli jails. That plan implicitly recognised Israel and supported the establishment of a Palestinian state in territory occupied by Israel in 1967. Abbas was prepared to put that 18-point plan to the Palestinian people in a referendum, and Hamas signed it at the end of May.
Let us be clear that the document is not a miraculous panacea for either side. Although there is implicit recognition of Israel, it is arguably so implicit as to be almost imperceptible. That point was stressed by two of the signatories, Abdel Kheleq Natsche from Hamas, and Bassam al-Sa’adi from Islamic Jihad, who declared:
“We scorn the attempts to attach non-existent content to the document and therefore we emphasise that it does not contain any declaration or hint of recognition of the occupation state and does not contain any call for this”.
In other ways, the document falls short of what the UK and other members of the international community want—an end to terrorism and a commitment to honouring existing international agreements. Although it is far from perfect, in terms of perception it represents a significant and symbolic move towards an acceptance, albeit implicit rather than explicit, of a peaceful two-state solution based on bilateral negotiation and future co-operation.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wright: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to press on.
In a meeting in the House only last month, the Israeli Prime Minister told hon. Members that he would pursue diplomatic negotiations and aimed to begin negotiation with President Abbas before embarking on his plans for withdrawal from the west bank. From a wider perspective, in April this year President Bush welcomed Prime Minister Siniora to the White House and proclaimed that Lebanon
“can serve as a great example of what is possible in the broader Middle East”.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |