I, too, welcome the publication of the roadmap, and I do so for one essential reason. It is currently the only internationally backed initiative. That backing is the key. Let us consider what has happened in the past few years. Whenever apparent progress has been made in the middle east, it has happened only in the context of international involvement. We all recognise that a solution will be possible by direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

The other international issue that must be borne in mind is that the roadmap does not stand alone. It is a framework—a mechanism. It cannot override established international law and United Nations resolutions over many years that lay out clearly what the basis for the future of the region should be.

The roadmap rightly and understandably makes demands of both Israel and Palestine. When we look at progress towards negotiation we must bear it in mind that the two sides are not equally balanced. On the one side is the state of Israel and on the other the Palestinian people who have lived under occupation for many years. They are not two equal powers. Far too often the peace process is discussed as if what was happening, or might be happening was negotiation between two equal powers. That is a further reason why international involvement is crucial. There are omissions from the roadmap. The building of the security fences and the attempt thereby to appropriate land are missing. They had not been built when the roadmap was drawn up.

Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): Does my hon. Friend agree that an important signal that the Israeli Government could send now to demonstrate that they are serious about implementing all phases of the roadmap is to stop building the walls and associated fences immediately?

Mr. Gerrard : I could not agree more. That is a simple and important point. The Israeli Cabinet has said that it accepts the roadmap, but at the same time it has tried to attach a range of conditions to it. Settlements have been mentioned. The Israeli Cabinet says that it will not discuss settlements in Judea, Sameria or Gaza, excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, 10 illegal outposts will be removed. That is 10 that are not occupied out of 102. Let us remember that the definition of an illegal outpost that is being used by the Government of Israel is not the same as the definition of a settlement. In international law, every settlement on the west bank and in Gaza is illegal, not just the 102.

My hon. Friend spoke about the right of return of refugees. The Israeli Cabinet states that in both the introductory statements to the roadmap and the final settlement reference must be made to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel. Again, the right of return of refugees has not been dreamt up in the roadmap: it is recognised clearly in international law. That right cannot just be written away, and if an attempt is made to do so, any solution will not work. We are talking not only about people in Gaza and in the west bank, but about people in the refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and especially Lebanon, where the conditions in the camps and the prospects for the people are probably worse than elsewhere.

If the aim is a viable Palestinian state—everyone says that that should be the aim—the obvious question is what constitutes a viable state. The only possible state that I can envisage in that region is a state that is based on the 1967 borders. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I visited refugee camps in the region two and half years ago, and every Palestinian to whom we spoke accepted that the 1967 borders provided the possibility for a viable state and that there could be no going back. However, a state will not be viable if it is made up of Bantustans and if settlements on the hilltops scattered in the west bank are still regarded as outside its control.

Although we are admittedly talking about a provisional Palestinian state with provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, Israel has said that that state can have only police and internal security forces, and no authority to undertake any defence alliances. Israel will control the exit and entry of all persons and cargo, as well as the state's airspace and electromagnetic spectrum. That is not viable in the long term. Even in the short term, those demands will mean that anyone travelling from Amman to Jerusalem will go through Israeli checkpoints—Israeli soldiers and the Israeli army will be within that provisional state. I do not believe that that can last for very long if there is to be progress.

On the ownership of the roadmap, one of the Israeli Cabinet's reservations is for the monitoring mechanism to be under American management. That is not acceptable. The roadmap is not the property of the US—it is the property of the Quartet. Since that means that the United Nations is involved, the roadmap is the property of the international community. The Israeli Government cannot unilaterally allocate monitoring to one state. That is unacceptable and we ought to say so now.

There is an opportunity that needs to be pursued. I welcome very much the fact that President Bush is today meeting both the Prime Minister of Israel and Abu Mazen. That needs to continue, because if the process fails, the situation could be catastrophic and there could be long-term problems in the area. However, I shall finish where I started by saying that our Government and the international community must take on the responsibility of ensuring that the roadmap is pursued, that negotiations are supported and encouraged and that, where necessary, pressure is put on either side to ensure that those negotiations develop.

Home Page     |     Parliament Page