The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Israel

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview Outside the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust – 26 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview outside the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford on 26th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted at the deal that looks as though it has been reached. It looks like a temporary deal. There is clearly going to be a lot more needing to be done to make sure that it is permanent. But it looks like a ceasefire with immediate effect. It looks like there is going to be some monitoring and I think that is a very good base upon which to build something more permanent. So I think it is extremely good news.

    QUESTION:

    What can be done for a permanent deal then?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they will need to see how one can provide a more permanent mechanism for the prevention of the Kaduscha attacks from Lebanon into Israel and I think as they move towards a Middle East settlement they will need also to look at the question of Israel removing from Southern Lebanon. They are both matters I think that will need to be addressed at some stage before we get a permanent settlement.

    QUESTION:

    What influence, Prime Minister, are you prepared to put on the Americans who have considerable influence on the Israelis to encourage them to withdraw from the [indistinct] zone?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we need a wider Middle East settlement. I think if one looks at this as a patchwork and expects odd things to be determined in isolation, then I think one may well look in vain. That is why I say this is a temporary settlement and I think one will need to look at a much wider scene before we get a permanent settlement. But as far as the British influence is concerned we have been exercising what influence we have with both sides for quite a long time towards a settlement, but clearly the Americans have been the largest single influence. They have taken a leading role in seeking a Middle East settlement. But both Britain itself and of course as part of the European Union have played their own part in seeking a settlement as well.

  • PMQT – 18 April 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the Ukraine, ahead of the G8 Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security.

    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I much agree with his anxieties about the need to avoid creating an unnecessarily heavy bureaucracy in London? However, in view of the excellent Evening Standard campaign for the notion of just an elected mayor and the fact that millions of Londoners do not want that concept to be the preserve of one or more than one political party, will my right hon. Friend think again about that proposal and return with further thoughts in due course–bearing it in mind that London, like other capital cities, needs to be famous and have an elected mayor?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government have explored that idea but it would be realistic to say that no hon. Members on either side of the House gave it overwhelming acclaim. Opposition came from Members of Parliament and from the local authority community. It is apparent that one can move to a directly elected mayor only with a root-and-branch overhaul of London’s local government structure, including the relationship between local and central Government. I do not believe that there is a public appetite for that, facing the real and urgent issues that the Government are addressing with such success for London.

    Mr. Prescott rose–

    Hon. Members: Middle class.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Calm down.

    Mr. Prescott: Please.

    Does the Deputy Prime Minister remember his shrewd analysis of November 1990–that the only way to restore the fortunes of the Conservative party was to dump Prime Minister Thatcher? Following the Tories’ humiliation in South-East Staffordshire last Thursday, what is the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis now?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because I have a new analysis. This week has seen three blows to the middle classes. First, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) admitted that the Labour party will put up their taxes. Secondly, we learned that Labour will tax company cars. Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has become a member of the middle classes.

    Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that all classes voted for Labour in South-East Staffordshire. Will he explain to the House why, if it was right to dump Prime Minister Thatcher in 1990 when the Tories were so unpopular, it is not right to dump Prime Minister Major now when the Tories are even more unpopular?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, all classes gave this Prime Minister the biggest popular vote in the history of the Conservative party, and because the conditions are now in place to secure a fifth Conservative victory. There are excellent economic forecasts and improving standards in education, and we shall see the current Prime Minister back in his job after the next general election.

    Mr. Prescott: Is not the real problem for the Tories the fact that whatever they do will not make a scrap of difference, because, as The Daily Telegraph–the bible of the middle classes–said today:

    “this Government is a disaster.”?

    Is it not time that the Deputy Prime Minister realised that the only answer is for him, his Government and the country to be put out of their misery by calling a general election now?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Not only has the right hon. Gentleman joined the middle classes; he has started reading a middle-class newspaper. The fact is that, however much one may disagree with much of today’s leader in The Daily Telegraph, one thing I can agree with wholeheartedly is that it realises that a Government formed of Opposition Members would be infinitely worse.

    Mr. Harris: What assurance can my right hon. Friend give fishermen from my constituency and from ports all round the coast of the United Kingdom who have come to London today–they are sailing up the Thames now–about the future of the industry? I agree with my right hon. Friend that we cannot withdraw unilaterally from the common fisheries policy and remain a member of the European Union, but does he agree that the common fisheries policy is inflicting huge damage on the industry and that it must be torn up and renegotiated?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is as well informed on fishing issues and policy as anyone in the House. I have just had a word with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for fisheries, who is to receive a delegation from the wider delegation that is in London today and who will be exploring its concerns. We have already dealt with some of its concerns. We are working closely with scientists on, for example, conservation to find more effective means of dealing with its concern. We have also made it clear that, in the context of the intergovernmental conference, we shall be raising the issue of quota hopping. We shall listen extremely carefully to the representatives of the fishing industry.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jamieson: Is not the Deputy Prime Minister’s real objection to the idea of a mayor for London that he loves new titles only when he can have them?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Having moved from being President to Deputy Prime Minister, it may not seem to be an advance now to become a mayor. If, on the other hand, by the united view of the House I were to be offered the job, I would have seriously to consider it.

    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend have a sneaking respect for those good, honest socialists who are stinking rich but who are prepared to argue that the rich should pay higher taxes? Would he, therefore, like to remind such people–Ben Elton, Maureen Lipman, Ken Follett and Melvyn Bragg–that nothing is stopping them now from voluntarily contributing more taxes? If we are to take the Ladywood line, anyone who is tempted to vote Labour who is currently earning a Member of Parliament’s salary of £34,000 or more can start paying extra taxes now if they want to, because there may not be a future Labour Government to force them to do so.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, the House will note, is in his place, mentioned to me that anyone who wants to get in touch with him and make a gesture pro bono publico will be warmly received. But the PSBR is coming down anyway, so there is no immediate need to make any request of that sort.

    The serious issue for the House is not whether there should be higher or lower public expenditure or tax but whether an Opposition party can systematically refuse to answer any questions about whether it intends to raise taxes, and for whom. An Opposition spokesman was literally clawed off the airwaves on a day when she should have been dealing with her major responsibility on the privatisation of British Rail because the Labour party was terrified that she would not tell the truth but repeat the truth.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hughes: On the subject of tax, the figures that we heard this morning showed an outturn for the year just gone of a PSBR of £32 billion against a projection of £21 billion. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor, who on “The World at One” today said that if before the next Budget the figures for the year that we have just started showed that the real PSBR was still £30 billion or higher, there would be no scope for tax cuts? Does he accept that that will mean that in the history of this Administration there will not have been tax cuts under the Tories, there are not now tax cuts under the Tories and, if all independent fiscal advice is prudently followed, there cannot be tax cuts before the next election under the Tories?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As I understand Liberal policy, the hon. Gentleman should support the Government in the Lobby. The Liberal party constantly seeks to increase tax bills, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will make judgments about the proper balance between public provision and tax reductions. What everyone knows, and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor’s last Budget made clear, is that when it can be prudently done, a Conservative Government will reduce taxes. That is why there has been a significant improvement in people’s real disposable income in the past few weeks, as taxes have come down under this Conservative Government.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend bank at Barclays? Was it not an awful waste of the bank’s money to send the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) all the way to Hong Kong–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must ask the Deputy Prime Minister questions on matters for which he has responsibility as a Minister.

    Sir Michael Neubert: With UK share prices hitting record highs, with unemployment coming down yet again this month by 27,500, and with price rises at their lowest levels for a generation, would not the hon. Member for Hartlepool do more to his own advantage by staying closer to home?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject because it is apparent from an article in The Times that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) had a task that could be interpreted as being in support of Government policy. He said:

    “We must step up our efforts to promote the town”

    of Hartlepool.

    “I am pleased to announce that during Easter I am travelling to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore to beat the drum for investment in Hartlepool.”

    That is Government policy. The problem is, of course, that the trip was paid for by Barclays bank and it has a different view. It said in the article:

    “The trip had nothing to do with Hartlepool. The only connection we have with Hartlepool is a branch in the High Street.”

    Mr. Galloway: Has the Deputy Prime Minister had time to see the devastating pictures of the shattered United Nations peacekeepers’ base in the south of Lebanon? In the past few hours, more than 50 Fijian soldiers, Lebanese and Palestinian refugees–men, women and children–have been slaughtered by the Israeli invasion force. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this morning, some hours earlier, a mother, her four-day-old child and her six other children were killed by an Israeli air raid on her home in south Lebanon? Does he agree that the flames now burning in Lebanon run the risk of burning to ash all the hopes of the peace process in the middle east? Will the British Government support an emergency meeting of the Security Council to try to bring the cycle of devastating violence to an end?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the subject of that appalling human tragedy, which shows all of us in the House how fragile peace processes are and how innocent the victims can often be. I have personally seen Fijian soldiers serving in the interest of the United Nations. They are an immensely impressive force and they do a wholly desirable task on behalf of a wider world. But when one considers the issues involved in south Lebanon and the attacks that Hezbollah has made on Israel from there, it is apparent that one is facing a near intractable problem of the deepest concern to the international community. The Government will do all that we can to play any part in accelerating the processes of peace and the restoration of a ceasefire. That, I understand, is the Israeli position and we strongly support that position. I am sure that the House will extend its sympathy to the relatives of those who were so unfortunately killed in today’s incident.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Kiev – 18 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Kiev on Thursday 18th April 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you condemn the Israelis for this latest rocket attack resulting in such a tragic loss of life?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think this is a dreadful loss of innocent lives, and what we have to look at now is how we can prevent a reoccurrence. Over the last 24 hours I have been in touch with President Chirac to discuss the affair; I have had a meeting with Prime Minister Hariri of Lebanon; and we have been in touch also with Mr Peres and President Clinton. I think what we need to do now is try and find a solution based on the agreements that were reached in 1993. I think that is possible, I don’t think we are a long way away from such an agreement, with a bit of goodwill on either side, and I am absolutely certain that that will be discussed at the G7 later on this week.

    QUESTION:

    Can it be excused?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we need to look forward now and find out precisely what we can do to prevent it happening. Everyone can look back at the Hezbollah attacks into Israel, and the Israeli attacks into Lebanon, but that is non-productive. What is productive is to make sure that it does not happen again, and to do that we need to find some way of ensuring that it doesn’t. And the only way that we have been able to [indistinct] so far is to build on the 1993 agreement, that is what we must try and do.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Statement on the Middle East Summit – 13 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening statement on the Middle East Summit, held on the 13th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Egypt is a senior member of the club of Middle East peacemakers. It is right that we should be meeting here in Sinai, whose peace and prosperity are one of the significant practical achievements of the Middle East peace process so far.

    We are here today for a simple reason: to support peace through political negotiation, and to make clear our implacable opposition to the wickedness of terrorism, and agree on practical measures to combat that terrorism.

    All those present share an absolute abhorrence of terrorist violence and a revulsion at those who murder innocent people. Most, like us, have known the effect of terrorism at first hand.

    But we are also here because of our full-hearted support for the peace process. We are not willing to see recent hopes die.

    The Middle East has seen remarkable progress in recent years. It has been led by exceptional and courageous men, some of whom are, sadly, not with us today.

    We owe it to them not to give in to those who have the evil purpose of destroying what has been created and preventing a peace settlement. If they win, peace loses.

    The people of the United Kingdom know something of the emotions and political difficulties involved in sustaining a process towards peace. We have only too much bitter experience of our own.

    Recently terrorist violence has also returned to the streets of London. Unjustified. Unacceptable. Leading nowhere but to more violence. We reject it with contempt. And we will continue to work for a lasting settlement with all those committed to peaceful, democratic methods.

    So I warmly welcome the co-operation between President Arafat and Prime Minister Peres to this end. I welcome the action President Arafat has taken. I urge him to persevere in this course, whatever the difficulties. Israel alone cannot police the Palestinian areas. The only solution is full collaboration between the Palestinian and Israeli security forces.

    They already do co-operate. As they do more, the way will I hope soon be clear for present measures affecting the people of the West Bank and Gaza to be eased. The parties need circumstances to be created which enable them to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible, on the Syrian as well as the Palestinian tracks.

    Britain has applauded the major steps forward between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians. We welcome recent progress in talks between Israel and Syria.

    That support remains complete today.

    We already co-operate with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the field of counter terrorism. We are looking urgently with them at the moment at what further practical help we might offer.

    We will consult President Arafat about how we can help train further the Palestinian Police Force and meet the needs of the Palestinian population. If by doing this we can erode the support Hamas gains: so much the better.

    If we deprive them of new breeding grounds in which to work, something worthwhile will have been achieved.

    We all know that terrorism is an international phenomenon. It thrives on international support. It often operates as Shimon Peres said, out of pariah states. We need collectively to try to stop this.

    I believe the time has come for us to look together, as part of the follow-up to this meeting, at the activities not just of those who actively conspire to commit terrorist acts but also at those who abuse the hospitality and protection available in some of our countries to create a climate in which terrorism can flourish. We need the right tools to tackle the terrorist fund-raisers and planners. This is something we must examine together, as those concerned will move from one safe haven to another.

    We have already started such as examination in Britain. I encourage others to do so, and to look at this collectively.

    But let us not forget where the core of the problem lies: with the bombers who have so savagely shattered the peaceful lives of Israelis in recent weeks and with those countries which encourage, condone and actively sponsor this terrorism. Let a clear call go out from this Conference to these countries to abandon such vicious policies. We have already spelt this out to Iran and Libya. I urge all concerned to commit themselves fully to the fight for the peace process and against terrorism.

    We are at a critical and difficult moment in the Process. But such moments have been met and overcome in the past. We must all be there to help ensure that they are met and overcome once more, in the future. If we are able to move in that direction, this meeting will have achieved something. But we must also move to practical action in the areas I have outlined.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bomb in Israel – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the bomb in Tel Aviv, Israel, in a pool interview held on Tuesday 5th March 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a third and very serious bomb, you of course condemn it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is an evil act. What has been happening in Israel has been a determination to try and find a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A huge amount of work has gone into that, a huge amount of goodwill. And now some evil acts are seeking to drive that whole process off course. This is the third such atrocity in the last few days and there is no conceivable way in which it can be explained, it is quite literally evil. We have had some experience of acts of sheer terror like this, acts simply to murder, to destroy and to make a political point. I think they are absolutely unforgivable and my heart goes out to the Israeli people.

    QUESTION:

    The real worry must be that such serious acts – suicide bombings like this – will cut off the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think that is what they are intended to do. I think they are intended to break up any chance of a rapprochement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and it will be very difficult to keep the process in being. I very much hope, though clearly it will make life very difficult, I very much hope after a while it will be possible to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Seoul – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Seoul on Tuesday 5th March 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a third and very serious bomb, you of course condemn it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is an evil act. What has been happening in Israel has been a determination to try and find a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A huge amount of work has gone into that, a huge amount of goodwill. And now some evil acts are seeking to drive that whole process off course. This is the third such atrocity in the last few days and there is no conceivable way in which it can be explained, it is quite literally evil. We have had some experience of acts of sheer terror like this, acts simply to murder, to destroy and to make a political point. I think they are absolutely unforgivable and my heart goes out to the Israeli people.

    QUESTION:

    The real worry must be that such serious acts – suicide bombings like this – will cut off the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think that is what they are intended to do. I think they are intended to break up any chance of a rapprochement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and it will be very difficult to keep the process in being. I very much hope, though clearly it will make life very difficult, I very much hope after a while it will be possible to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview Following Meeting with Shimon Peres – 31 January 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement in London following a meeting with Shimon Peres, the Israeli Prime Minister, on Wednesday 31st January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just firstly say what a very welcome guest the Prime Minister is here this afternoon. We have met on many occasions in recent years and I am delighted that we were able to have a fairly wide ranging discussion this afternoon.

    Amongst the matters we talked about, I think there are two that I would particularly wish to mention before I invite the Prime Minister to say a few words. The first is to extend my unqualified congratulations at the success of the way in which the Palestinian elections took place and the way in which they turned out. I think the way in which that has been handled, and the courageous decisions that were taken over the last year or so, are material to the success of those elections and I believe the Prime Minister deserves every congratulation for the way in which he has handled that.

    The second thing I would just wish to say is a word about the bilateral relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Israel. I cannot remember a time when the bilateral relationships were as close over a whole range of issues as they are at the present time. And I think the great deal of the credit for that goes to Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Peres. We have had the opportunity of talking and meeting on many occasions in recent years and some of the old issues, where we rubbed up uneasily against one another, have been put very firmly behind us in the bilateral relationship and I am delighted to have the opportunity of saying that to you this afternoon.

    The Prime Minister will wish to say a few words. Finally, I simply wish to say that I very much look forward to the dinner at which we are both speaking tomorrow evening and I will have the pleasure of introducing the principal guest – the Prime Minister – as indeed I do now.

    MR PERES:

    Thank you. Well I wanted to thank the Prime Minister for really enabling us to enjoy an extremely well and close relationship between Great Britain and Israel, particularly after the visit of the Prime Minister to our country. It was enriched economically, it was extended to many other fields of mutual interest and I really agree with the Prime Minister that they are at their very best.

    I think that Great Britain has contributed greatly to the peace process by encouraging the parties to go ahead, by supporting the Palestinians in building their own autonomy and their own administration, which we favour very much. I share his view that the elections serve as the crown for a revolutionary approach to one of the most complicated issues of our time and today became a new reality.

    I have had the opportunity to inform the Prime Minister that we are continuing our peace efforts now with the Syrians and the Lebanese, we are very [indistinct] and we intend to go ahead.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any British and European initiative to speed up the process, especially the talks, between Israel and the Syrians because it looks like the Americans have not achieved much so far? Mr Peres, we have heard today that Syria has expressed some reservation and a note of pessimism about the talks in Maryland which will finish tonight. Are you optimistic that the talks will resume in Israel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are happy to play whatever role we can to facilitate the talks, but we cannot reach agreements there. The best that we can do is to encourage the parties to talk and to take whatever action we may that will ensure that those talks, when they take place, are successful. That we are happy to do. But beyond being a facilitator, there is nothing that I can say to you today about that. Whatever we are asked to do, and can credibly do, you have my assurance that we will do and we will advise our European partners to join us in that. But I think the principal responsibility is going to lie in the direct negotiations between President Assad and the Prime Minister, that is where the decisions will be taken.

    MR PERES:

    I think in the right [indistinct] the two of them were successful meetings. A great deal of progress was done. The agenda is a very rich and complicated one, but I am rather satisfied with the results of the meetings and I do not see any reason to become pessimistic. But one of the main things is the optimism which is necessary for the negotiations.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview Following Meeting with Shimon Peres – 31 January 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement in London following a meeting with Shimon Peres, the Israeli Prime Minister, on Wednesday 31st January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just firstly say what a very welcome guest the Prime Minister is here this afternoon. We have met on many occasions in recent years and I am delighted that we were able to have a fairly wide ranging discussion this afternoon.

    Amongst the matters we talked about, I think there are two that I would particularly wish to mention before I invite the Prime Minister to say a few words. The first is to extend my unqualified congratulations at the success of the way in which the Palestinian elections took place and the way in which they turned out. I think the way in which that has been handled, and the courageous decisions that were taken over the last year or so, are material to the success of those elections and I believe the Prime Minister deserves every congratulation for the way in which he has handled that.

    The second thing I would just wish to say is a word about the bilateral relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Israel. I cannot remember a time when the bilateral relationships were as close over a whole range of issues as they are at the present time. And I think the great deal of the credit for that goes to Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Peres. We have had the opportunity of talking and meeting on many occasions in recent years and some of the old issues, where we rubbed up uneasily against one another, have been put very firmly behind us in the bilateral relationship and I am delighted to have the opportunity of saying that to you this afternoon.

    The Prime Minister will wish to say a few words. Finally, I simply wish to say that I very much look forward to the dinner at which we are both speaking tomorrow evening and I will have the pleasure of introducing the principal guest – the Prime Minister – as indeed I do now.

    MR PERES:

    Thank you. Well I wanted to thank the Prime Minister for really enabling us to enjoy an extremely well and close relationship between Great Britain and Israel, particularly after the visit of the Prime Minister to our country. It was enriched economically, it was extended to many other fields of mutual interest and I really agree with the Prime Minister that they are at their very best.

    I think that Great Britain has contributed greatly to the peace process by encouraging the parties to go ahead, by supporting the Palestinians in building their own autonomy and their own administration, which we favour very much. I share his view that the elections serve as the crown for a revolutionary approach to one of the most complicated issues of our time and today became a new reality.

    I have had the opportunity to inform the Prime Minister that we are continuing our peace efforts now with the Syrians and the Lebanese, we are very [indistinct] and we intend to go ahead.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any British and European initiative to speed up the process, especially the talks, between Israel and the Syrians because it looks like the Americans have not achieved much so far? Mr Peres, we have heard today that Syria has expressed some reservation and a note of pessimism about the talks in Maryland which will finish tonight. Are you optimistic that the talks will resume in Israel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are happy to play whatever role we can to facilitate the talks, but we cannot reach agreements there. The best that we can do is to encourage the parties to talk and to take whatever action we may that will ensure that those talks, when they take place, are successful. That we are happy to do. But beyond being a facilitator, there is nothing that I can say to you today about that. Whatever we are asked to do, and can credibly do, you have my assurance that we will do and we will advise our European partners to join us in that. But I think the principal responsibility is going to lie in the direct negotiations between President Assad and the Prime Minister, that is where the decisions will be taken.

    MR PERES:

    I think in the right [indistinct] the two of them were successful meetings. A great deal of progress was done. The agenda is a very rich and complicated one, but I am rather satisfied with the results of the meetings and I do not see any reason to become pessimistic. But one of the main things is the optimism which is necessary for the negotiations.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Jerusalem – 6 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Jerusalem on 6th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Could you just tell us whether you think the Middle East is now a less stable place, after the assassination?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Over the last few years, both Palestinians and the Israelis have made tremendous strides towards a Middle East settlement. Very few people anticipated that it would have got this far, and a great deal of the credit for that is of course to Prime Minister Rabin. I believe that his legacy will help carry that forward. I think that must be the hope. I don’t have a shred of doubt from my separate discussions with the Israelis and with the Palestinians that there is a will to take this matter forward. I very much hope that that will can be built on.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there are any lessons here for the Northern Ireland peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are some communal lessons for all processes of this sort. They are very difficult. They are very time-consuming. They need a lot of patience. Sometimes there are setbacks. It’s necessary to keep going. And from time to time it’s necessary to take risks. That has been true of the peace process here. It’s true of the Northern Ireland process as well.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Chequers – 5 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at Chequers on Sunday 5th November 1995 following the assassination of Yitkhaz Rabin.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction to the assassination?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am deeply saddened by what has happened. Yitzhak Rabin has been seeking for peace in the Middle East for very many years. I think no-one has done so much towards seeking it as he has. What has happened is a great tragedy, not just for his family, not just for Israel, but for the Middle East peace process.

    QUESTION:

    How concerned are you about the future of the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone wants the peace process to continue and be successful. There is a great world interest in the peace process, not just here in the United Kingdom but right across the world. I think that what Mr Rabin would have wanted would be for this to have given some momentum to the peace process in the future and I very much hope that will happen.

    QUESTION:

    What will you be saying to the Acting Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will be expressing the thoughts of millions of people in the United Kingdom about what has happened. He was a very popular man here, a frequent visitor here, a very good relationship with the United Kingdom. There will be huge numbers of people in this country who will feel very personally about what will happen. I will certainly express that to the Acting Prime Minister. And then I will express the wish that he will carry on the work. He has been intimately involved with it. I am sure he will, and I hope that Mr Peres will carry it forward to success.

    QUESTION:

    How did you find Mr Rabin personally?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I found him a very engaging man. I had met him quite frequently over recent years. We had a great deal to discuss. I was the first British Prime Minister for many years to visit Israel just a few months ago. We spent a lot of time together. He visited here on many occasions.

    When he was here I think last time, or last time but one, it was the day of one of the dreadful bus bombs in Israel and we provided a plane immediately for him to go home. We spoke from time to time on the phone. I found him a man utterly determined to proceed down the peace process, despite the short-term difficulties, despite the obvious discomforts of going down that road politically, because he believed there was a great historical opportunity for peace and he was determined to try and take it.