Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do everything that he can to encourage the efforts of the responsible elements on each side in the middle east? Does he agree that Israel could do more to help the peace-making process by refraining from forcing down airliners and by abandoning its policy of establishing settlements in Arab-dominated areas on the West Bank?
I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. It is essential that both sides should refrain from acts of violence or making threats of violence. We have repeatedly made it clear to Israel that its settlement policy is illegal and is an obstacle to peace. To freeze settlements would increase confidence in Israeli intentions, and that was one matter discussed with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that everyone who met Mr. Peres and listened to him during his visit was deeply impressed by his manifestly passionate desire to further the peace process, at whatever cost, including stopping the establishment of settlements on the West Bank? Will the Government exercise whatever influence they can, limited though it unhappily is, to help him in that objective?
Of course. It was clear from our discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister that he is anxious to promote the peace process, and for that reason we value the discussions that we had with him. To carry that peace process forward will require a willingness to make concessions on both sides, after we have completed the difficult task of establishing who should be the representative spokesmen for both sides.
That is not yet the position, although it was with the intention of establishing some such way forward that we extended an invitation last September to the joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation to visit Britain. We must continue the search for every possible way of building that bridge between the two sides.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his condemnation of Israeli action against the Libyan aircraft yesterday will be widely welcomed? Does not the failure of Israeli intelligence involved in yesterday's escapade cast grave doubt on the justification for previous Israeli strikes against alleged terrorist targets in Lebanon, Tunisia and elsewhere, which were based on similar Israeli intelligence?
It is not possible to comment on another country's intelligence, least of all in respect of a series of other unidentified incidents. The whole episode underlines the importance of restraint and determination when dealing with terrorists and terrorism, to ensure that only those who are identifiably guilty are the recipients of any recriminations.
Israel has a truly deplorable record of international terrorism and air piracy. I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend has issued a statement. Will he continue to emphasise to the Israeli Government that such violations of international law are damaging to peace and that it is no good talking about peace unless one acts accordingly?
I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has put his question, in the light of recent incidents. When handling all such matters, it is important to remain evenhanded and firm in one's condemnation of every kind of illegality.
I unreservedly welcome the Government's decision to stop the practice of the authentification of Arab boycott documents. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeat his condemnation of the boycott as a completely unacceptable interference with freedom of trade?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he advised the Israeli Prime Minister that no meaningful progress can be made in the middle east until the American and Israeli Governments acknowledge the fact that the Palestinians can be represented only by the Palestine Liberation Organisation in any future negotiations, as the Arab world has collectively agreed and repeatedly stated?
I appreciate my hon. Friend's presentation of the Arab world's view. We do not accept that the PLO is the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. We have no doubt that the PLO should be associated with negotiations, provided that it renounces violence and is committed to a peaceful settlement along familiar lines.
Leaving aside the formula of the sole, legitimate representative, the Foreign Secretary will recall that in the Venice declaration of June 1980 we agreed that the PLO must have a role in peace negotiations. No conditions were applied at that time. Does that remain our policy, and, if so, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the nature of the message that Prime Minister Peres wished him to convey to King Hussein about the PLO's role in peace negotiations?
It would not be appropriate for me to give details of the messages being passed in such circumstances. I can confirm that the Israeli Prime Minister and His Majesty King Hussein are seeking to find a way to carry forward the peace process, based on the initiative taken by King Hussein last year. In that context, we have made it clear, as we did in the Venice declaration, that the PLO must be associated with the negotiations.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Strasbourg last week, when speaking to the representatives of 21 European countries, President Mubarak, who is, after all, a founder member of the peace process in the middle east, said that negotiations which did not include PLO representatives had no hope of success?