---

Gaza

My Lords, the longer I am in your Lordships' House, the more I realise that I am probably regarded as something of the runt of the Conservative litter, because I am always put on to speak at the end, when everything that I would want to say has already been said, but I always believe that we should declare interests. I found it difficult that interests were not declared in this debate today. I sat down with my list to try to work out who was Conservative, Labour, and Cross-Bench. Then I did something very sinful. I tried to write down their faith on the right-hand side, because I was not sure whether we would have prejudice. We have had a debate of prejudice. Perhaps I should stand between my noble friends, because one feels one way and one the other. There is no ill feeling, but, suddenly, out of all this prejudice come a few interesting thoughts. I declare my interests. I am a Scot; I am very proud of that. I am a member of the Church of Scotland. My sister and I were brought up in the United States; she is now an American citizen and has become a catholic. Two of her children are married to Jewish ladies and are trying to argue about the resonance and complications of all that. My brother-in-law was a militant member of the IRA, and Irish. Somehow, I feel that people with strong religions and faith are terrorists. Not we Scots. Your Lordships will know that there are approximately 25 million Scots in the world. There are only 5 million in Scotland; the Scots are everywhere else and they are traders trying to make money. We will deal with anybody. I believe that there are only 22,637,000 Jews in the world: 6 million in Israel, a large chunk in America, some in Sao Paulo and a lot in Dakar, because they were traders too. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stone, speak today. He will recall some of my past interests as chairman of the committee for Middle East trade when, for six years, I had responsibility for trading with the Arab world and Marcus Sieff, as he then was, was responsible for Israel. His budget for one country, Israel, was bigger than mine. I argued that there was not much trade with Israel: it was all diamonds that were sent over here and sent back. Then I met the noble Lord, Lord Stone. While we were in Egypt, we thought that we could help the Egyptians after the war. True to form, he was not prejudicial, but they sent two men from Marks & Spencer. One we called ““Never mind what it tastes like, look at what it looks like””. He turned a potato into a meal by putting some cream and chives on top and multiplied the value of that potato ad nauseam. The other one we called ““Never mind the quality, feel the width””. He was the textile man. In no time, the team from Marks & Spencer had taught the Egyptians, who had produced some of the best cotton in the world, to do that. They put the buttons in the wrong place. We had a little problem with the label. The Egyptians wanted to have the words ““Egyptian cotton”” on the back. Marks & Spencer, or their team, thought that was inappropriate; could it be on the sleeve? Perhaps it should be where they sometimes stitch them, under the armpit, but that was not good because we might have smelly armpits. Finally, it was considered that it might go on the tail of the shirt but, to be profitable, the tails had to be short. You could not have those long tails. The real thing was trade. When we got involved with Jordan, there was no need for me as a Christian. They sat down and worked it all out together. They were traders. One problem we face in this world is economic situations. We can all say that he who forgives from a position of strength is more honourable than he who forgives from a position of weakness, which I think comes from the Koran, or that he who kills shall surely himself be killed, but it is not a question of multilateralism. It is all very well to speak about the international community. The international community is like sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. It does nothing. I always represent someone else's views, because I have never had views of my own. I have the honour to represent the 52 former senior British diplomats who, on 27 April 2004, wrote to Tony Blair. I will quote only small parts of the letter, because otherwise it will take too much time, but it is very appropriate. They wrote: "““We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States””." They go on to refer to, "““new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood””." At the end, they simply say: "““We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally””." Is this a religious situation? When I used to go around the Middle East, I would suddenly be locked up practically. I was allowed to go there when we had no diplomatic relations. When we had good relations, the Foreign Office said that it did not need people involved in trade, but as soon as we had the Salman Rushdie problem, I went out on my own, and when we had the super-gun thing, I went out on my own. I went without a visa because if you had one it meant that someone else knew you were going—they would invite you. Often, I would be sat down and a lecture would begin. In a high-pitched voice, through the interpreter, I would be told, ““You are a lackey of capitalist American policies which have destroyed the stability of the world and caused the death of many innocent ‘womens and childs’””. Then I would make my own attack on them. We have a wonderful opportunity here. Israel, if it could get off its hung-up ideas about everyone wanting to get rid of Israel—it is not true at all; it is a political stance—has some of the greatest technology in production and agriculture, and an efficient organisation which could be harnessed and used. The British still have one of the best reputations and the best relationships out there. We are trusted. People there used to say to me of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, ““Oh, here is Lord Wright. He is always right, but we like his right””. Or about Sir Hannay, as the Iraqis called him, they would say, ““He is British: we can trust him but we can’t trust the Americans””. The Americans are not untrustworthy; they just do not have the same international requirements that we have. We have to trade, but America is to some extent self-sufficient. Her Majesty’s Government should simply get together with the Americans, give the noble Lord, Lord Stone, and me a large sum of money and say, ““Go out and buy food””, and we will produce food throughout Africa. It is a pity that the Israelis were not given some of the countries in Africa, as they have that remarkable ability to produce wealth. If we could spare a little bit more time to think less about politics and to think about economics and the creation of wealth and prosperity, stability would follow.