---

Terrorism (Foreign Policy Aspects)

: I wonder, too, however, whether the shortness of the passage is also related to an understandable reticence about pronouncing from outside, so to speak, on a conflict that is so complex. Page 101 includes the statement that the Committee recognises fully that"““the danger that active engagement by the West with a view to influencing the outcome of events in the Middle East more widely could be counter-productive, unless it is sought and welcomed by the people of the region and by their representatives.””" That has been borne out fully by the comments of other hon. Members. It is almost inconceivable that any durable settlement could be achieved without bold, forthright and principled influence being brought to bear from the outside. I recently visited Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Hebron and other parts of the west bank and I should like to add something to what others have said: although the barrier, or wall, or whatever one wants to call it, is the most striking and visible expression of division and hostility in the west bank today, it disguises something that is in many ways more pervasive and destructive—the almost totally dysfunctional nature of the west bank itself. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) rightly talked of the hundreds of road blocks, both permanent and temporary, and the complex—almost byzantine—system of permits, that make it almost impossible for people to do their jobs, meet their families or travel from one town to another. I experienced that when we tried to travel from Hebron back to east Jerusalem. We were stopped at three road blocks. It took hour upon hour. The crescendo of frustration and hostility felt in the crowds of people caught up in the road blocks was tangible. I find it striking that the slightly less visible form of fragmentation that is imposed on the west bank does not seem to be well known among Israelis. I am not sure whether this anecdote is worth much, although it spoke volumes to me. I had supper with an old friend of mine, with whom I used to study in the United Kingdom, and who is now a best-selling author in Israel. He is very much of what I should call a liberal-progressive persuasion and sends his children to one of the few Arab-Israeli schools in Jerusalem. In conversation, it became quite obvious that despite assiduous reading of liberal press publications in Israel, he was almost totally unaware of the extent to which life in the west bank had been fragmented and disfigured by the web of physical and bureaucratic obstacles that make it impossible for the Palestinian community even to approach a semblance of social, political and economic, let alone geographic contiguity. It is therefore incumbent on those of us who care passionately about an equitable peace settlement in the region, to do everything in our powers to ensure that the Israeli Government and authorities are not allowed to forget that the rest of us are watching what is happening in the west bank with increasing concern. That is not because we do not understand the need to take measures to protect Israelis against suicide attacks—of course, the attack in recent days has only reinforced that—but that making the Palestinian community so dysfunctional makes it all the more likely that there simply will not be a partner to negotiate with in any final peace settlement. My final question for the Minister is whether the issue of the existence and pervasiveness of the closures is being raised in sufficiently forceful terms by the Government in their contacts with the Israeli Government. As a postscript, I have read that a number of campaigners have called for the use of existing agreements between the European Union and the Israeli Government to try to highlight some of these issues. Personally, I do not think that there is any merit in talking loosely about invoking economic trade sanctions, embargoes or whatever. It is politically totally unrealistic and would almost certainly be counter-productive. What struck me when I talked to officials on the ground, both British diplomats and diplomats from other EU states, was that they had apparently not discussed among themselves or with their various political masters in the EU capitals whether the provisions of the EU-Israel association agreement are being properly monitored in the first place. As the Minister will know it is a very complete agreement covering a number of trade and economic issues. It also includes a number of crucial human rights and other provisions that place a legal obligation on Israel to respect the rule of law in all that it does and equally place a legal obligation on the EU to ensure that that is monitored fully and continuously. I am concerned that there does not seem to be any mechanism for that monitoring to take place. I understand that there will be a meeting between the EU under the British presidency and the Israeli Government on 12 December at which there are plans to establish a so-called human rights committee. I should be keen to know what the Minister thinks that committee will do to provide the proper monitoring of an agreement that plays such a crucial role in regulating the relationship between ourselves and Israel. Extraordinary rendition and our approach to the circumstances on the ground in the middle east are two notable areas—there are others, of course—where a degree of ““interconnectedness”” and ““coherence””, as the report puts it, seem absolutely essential if we are to continue to assume the moral high ground but also develop a strategy that is both principled and effective in prosecuting our war against terrorism.