Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to introduce this very important debate under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am delighted that we are able to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Munich Olympics massacre.
First, we should pay tribute to the tremendous success of the London Olympics. The Olympic Delivery Authority, LOCOG—the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games—the security services, the Army and the police have all helped to deliver a brilliant, safe and secure games. We must also pay tribute to the 70,000 volunteers who have made it such a friendly and relaxed but businesslike Olympics. We see the London Olympics as having been one of the best games ever, and without doubt the London Paralympics have been the best Paralympic games that there have ever been. We can rightly be proud of that.
The games have been assisted by superb performances by athletes and particularly by Team GB. However, the crowd have cheered on athletes from throughout the world, not just Great British athletes. I am minded to recall the words of Lord Coe, who said that the medal table was not the important issue; it was the participation and performance of individual athletes, rather than their country of origin. We celebrate them as Olympians.
Everyone will have their own views on the opening and closing ceremonies of the London games. I think that it was right that we remembered the fallen of two world wars and, of course, the victims of the 7/7 terrorist attacks, but the one thing that was not mentioned was the darkest hour of the Olympic games—the Munich massacre. I think that it is indeed shameful that the International Olympic Committee could not find one minute during the six weeks of the games to commemorate the victims of the worst terrorist attack in Olympic history. I feel very strongly about this and have been very vocal in my belief. I have trumpeted it not only in the House of Commons, but at every event during the summer to do with the Olympics.
It may be worth providing some background and explaining what happened in Munich in 1972 and what the IOC subsequently did. At 4.30 am on 5 September 1972, the summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany, were the scene of the most devastatingly violent and anti-Semitic attack against members of the Israeli Olympic team. A group of eight Palestinians—members of the Black September terrorist group—broke into the Olympic grounds and systematically hunted down Israeli athletes, officials and coaches. Forcing their way into bedrooms in the early morning, they killed on sight and took a number of hostages. The Black September members were demanding the release of 234 prisoners held in Israeli jails and their safe passage to Egypt.
After a failed rescue attempt, undertaken by the ill-equipped and ill-prepared German authorities, 11 Israelis and one German police officer were murdered by the attackers. It is imperative that we do not forget those innocent men who died. I feel a duty to name them today: Moshe Weinberg, Yossef Romano, Ze’ev Friedman, David Berger, Yakov Springer, Eliezer Halfin, Yossef Gutfreund, Kehat Shorr, Mark Slavin, Andre Spitzer, Amitzur Shapira, Anton Fliegerbauer. I apologise if my pronunciation was not completely accurate.
Five of the eight assassins were killed by the German security forces. The three survivors were captured, but were later released by West Germany following the hijacking by Black September of a Lufthansa airliner. In a deplorable move, the bodies of the five Palestinian assassins were delivered to Libya, where they received heroes’ funerals and were buried with full military honours. The two prisoners released by the West German Government received a hero’s welcome when they returned and gave a first-hand account of the massacre at a press conference that was broadcast worldwide. Such acceptance and glorification of acts of terrorism must never be accepted.
The massacre prompted the suspension of the Olympics for the first time in modern Olympic history. Although the Israeli Government and Olympic team endorsed the decision to allow the games to continue, it quickly became clear that the remaining athletes no longer felt comfortable competing and groups began to withdraw from the competition.
A memorial service in remembrance of those who had died was held on 6 September and was attended by 80,000 spectators and 3,000 athletes. During the memorial service, the Olympic flag was flown at half mast. That overwhelming attendance and mass mourning was echoed at the 1976 Olympics, where, during the opening ceremony, the Israeli national flag was adorned with a black ribbon.
However, there has been nothing since. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Munich massacre, yet until this year, in a remarkable state of apathy, there had been no further commemoration. In 2004, the widow of fencing coach Andre Spitzer, Mrs Ankie Spitzer, spoke to a room of more than 200 people at the Israeli ambassador’s residence to denounce that fact and call for a permanent mark of remembrance. Her words are as salient now as they were then:
“More than 30 years have passed, but for the families of the innocent victims, it seems like only yesterday. But why are we standing here? We should have this memorial in front of all the athletes. This is not an Israeli issue; this concerns the whole Olympic family.”
I am appalled by the lack of response from the International Olympic Committee to such calls. It has stated that to introduce such a specific reference could alienate and offend other members of the Olympic community. Indeed, Alex Gilady, an Israeli IOC official, told BBC News Online:
“We must consider what this could do to other members of the delegations that are hostile to Israel.”
Frankly, this is a disgrace. It is my firm conviction that we must not allow the memory of this tragedy to fade and that the IOC has an obligation to mark this loss with a permanent form of remembrance.
I am not alone in this sentiment. Mrs Spitzer has since tabled an online petition calling for a one-minute silence at the next Olympics. At the last count, there were 111,000 signatures recorded. The Facebook event aimed at uniting people around the world in their own minute of silence had 172,213 guests. That shows the astounding level of support for this cause.
Earlier this year, I tabled early-day motion 100, calling for a minute’s silence at the London 2012 summer Olympics and at every Olympic games “to promote peace” and
“to honour the memory of those murdered”.
I urge hon. Members here today to sign that early-day motion if they have not already done so.
We must now continue to work to put consistent pressure on the IOC. It is vital that we do not allow another anniversary to pass without an appropriate and permanent form of remembrance. The families and friends of those who died have worked tirelessly for four decades for the recognition that they deserve, and I am now asking people here to add their voice to that struggle.
Mr Rogge is on the record as saying that he feels that the opening ceremony
“is an atmosphere that is not fit to remember such a tragic incident.”
However, that is wholly inconsistent with past opening ceremonies. The 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City justifiably included a number of references and tributes to those lost or injured in the 9/11 attacks. The same point can be made in regard to the tragic death of Georgian luge slider Nodar Kumaritashvili, who died during a practice run at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games. Quite rightly, the IOC commemorated his memory during the Olympic ceremony with a moment of silence and flew the Georgian and Olympic flags at half-mast. I see no reason why the same level of courtesy and respect should not be granted to those who lost their lives at the Munich games. The individuals murdered that day were not only Israelis, but Olympians, and should be honoured as such.
Claims that commemoration will politicise the Olympics are fatuous and deny those who lost their lives that day their rightful place in the Olympic family. It is the IOC that is guilty of politicisation, and those who have honourably fought for recognition and remembrance recognise that. Instead of doing what is clearly the right thing, the IOC has rejected repeated appeals from the Israeli team to note the anniversary. Jacques Rogge explained:
“The IOC has officially paid tribute to the memory of the athletes on several occasions.”
However, the Israeli Olympic committee and the Israeli Foreign Ministry, rather than the IOC, organised those occasions of remembrance.
Due to the growing amount of pressure placed upon him, the IOC President Jacques Rogge did hold a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes at the Olympic village. He is quoted as saying that it is
“absolutely normal I should call for a remembrance of the Israeli athletes.”
However, there was no advance notice of the event and, as such, only about 100 people attended. It is clear from the correspondence I have received and the support given to Mrs Spitzer and her cause that that number would have grown exponentially if it had been properly advertised.
The behaviour of the Olympic officials has been wholly inconsistent with their own philosophy. The Olympic charter provides a number of clear bullet-pointed roles of the IOC. To quote a few, its role is
“to encourage and support the promotion of ethics…in sport as well as education of youth through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails and violence is banned;…to take action”
in order
“to strengthen the unity and to protect the independence of the Olympic Movement”,
and
“to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement”.
The fundamental principles of Olympism state that it
“is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. The goal…is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this very poignant story to the House today. Mary Peters, now Dame Mary Peters, from Northern Ireland won a gold medal 40 years ago. Every time she recalls her gold medal victory at the Munich Olympics, she recalls the despicable and vicious murder of the 11 Israeli athletes. It is recorded in her stories and in the provincial papers. I want to support the hon. Gentleman in bringing this matter to the House, but many nations and athletes, including those in Northern Ireland, remember it every time there are Olympics and every year on the anniversary.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I well recall the great performance of Mary Peters in winning her gold medal, which is something to be celebrated, but, sadly, it is remembered along with the terrible events in Munich.
Another key fundamental principle of Olympism is:
“Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.”
The principles make clear that no person or country should be discriminated against, that violence should be abhorred and that human dignity should be valued. I merely ask for those principles to be upheld by the IOC. I am certain that had the 11 murdered Olympians been from any country other than Israel we would not be having this debate. The IOC would have organised a memorial at each and every subsequent Olympic games.
The Olympic ideals of friendship, brotherhood and peace are not just words—not a slogan for nothing. In the words of Mrs Spitzer:
“Our message is not one of hatred or revenge. It’s the opposite. We want the world to remember what happened there so that this will never happen again.”
The message of the campaign and the ethics of the Olympic movement are synonymous and harmonious. It is important that this humanitarian, rather than political, request is granted to show that the IOC still understands that. We should honour the 11 Olympians who lost their lives. We should honour them not because they were Israeli athletes and coaches, but because they were Olympians. We should remember the terrible event and I hope, Ms Dorries, that you will allow us to do so by honouring their memory with a one-minute silence at the conclusion of the debate.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
We have discussed the one-minute silence. The Minister and Dame Tessa Jowell agree. There will be a Division at 4 o’clock and we do not want the bell to cut across the one-minute silence, so the wind-ups need to start at 3.35 pm. We will call the one-minute silence at 3.58 pm, so we will be through before the Division bell rings.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and his excellent speech in commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Olympics massacre in Munich.
When we talk about middle east affairs, it is important that we always place them in the context of the time. Of course, 1972 was a very different age from our own. International terrorism, with which sadly we all have become far too familiar, was relatively new, and Black September itself was a relatively new terrorist organisation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know better than most of us that terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland really started to get going in 1969-70. I believe that 1972 was the most blood-drenched year in Northern Ireland’s history, with hundreds of soldiers murdered and many civilians killed. At that time, many countries in the world were confronting terrorism for the first time.
Another new thing in the early 1970s was live television, as was the start of colour broadcasts. I think that I am right that, even at the 1968 Mexico City games, live television as we know it today did not really happen, as a lot of events were recorded and broadcast later, but in Munich in 1972, there were live outside broadcasts to countries all around the world. What made the terrorist incident in the Olympic village in Munich all the worse was that the murders of 11 people and a German police officer were broadcast live as they happened on television screens in people’s front rooms. Millions of people around the world saw for themselves the awful events unfold and, of course, that made for very uncomfortable viewing.
Of course, 1972 was no more than 27 years after 6 million Jews were led to their deaths in German extermination camps. The Munich Olympics were meant to be Germany’s rehabilitation—if you like—in the international world order. They were to be a games of peace, joy and happiness that could bring the nations of the world together in the Olympic spirit, and that could show West Germany, as it was then, as a modern nation, free of its past. The presence of the Israeli team at the Olympic games was a very important part of that. Indeed, the Israeli athlete who carried the Israeli flag at the Olympic opening ceremony, Henry Hershkowitz, who was a marksman, said:
“I felt awesome pride that Jews could raise their flag on German soil. This is proof that the Nazis weren’t able to crush the Jewish spirit, the Israeli spirit.”
The presence of such a large Israeli team in Munich was a very important part of the 1972 games, and it was therefore even more terrible that it was the Israeli team that was targeted by Palestinian terrorists.
Additionally, 1972 was the best part of a decade before other well-known terrorist incidents, such as the Iranian embassy hostage siege in London. Many of us recall that event, and the success of the SAS in liberating most of the hostages and killing the attackers sent a clear signal to the world that Britain would not be held hostage by terrorist organisations. However, the success in dealing with the Iranian embassy hostage siege was in complete contrast to the mess made by the German authorities in dealing with the Palestinian attack on the Israeli Olympians, because the Germans just did not know what they were doing.
In the early 1970s, nations around the world did not know how to deal with terrorist incidents. All the security apparatus with which we are now all too familiar—trained marksmen, and soldiers wearing gasmasks and abseiling into buildings—did not exist in 1972. Indeed, there were no armed police at all in the Olympic village or the Olympic park, because the German authorities deliberately wanted to downplay their militaristic part. The Israeli compound was on the ground floor with no security barriers, so the terrorists simply opened the door and walked in.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the cruellest ironies of what happened in Munich in 1972 was that, under the post-war settlement, the German military authorities were not able to undertake on German soil the sort of work that they could carry out only four years later when giving their assistance at Entebbe and in other terrorist actions? As he rightly points out, a particular tragedy in 1972 was that the German authorities on the ground were unable to organise the sort of rescue that we have perhaps all come to take for granted in other terrorist incidents in the decades since.
Mr Hollobone
As always on such matters, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, with reference to the Iranian embassy hostage siege in London, we remember pictures of black-clad SAS men on the roof abseiling down into the windows and taking out the terrorists. As people will recall from Munich, live television was showing German police officers—armed at that point, and dressed in tracksuits—on the roof and creeping down towards the Israeli quarters. The amateurishness of it all was exposed by the fact that nobody thought that there was a television in the Israeli quarters where the hostages were being held, but the terrorists could see on the TV screen the police officers on the roof above them. Basic security measures were not thought of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is quite right to say that the different organisational structures between the federal Government and the Bavarian authorities meant that there was no proper co-ordination. There were absurd scenes in which Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the federal Interior Minister—the equivalent of the Home Secretary in this country—stood outside the Israeli quarters negotiating face to face with the leader of the terrorists, who was holding a hand grenade. We just cannot imagine that such a situation would arise today. That was how basic it all was then; no one knew how to deal with such terrorist incidents.
Although I am putting on the record my analysis of the amateurishness and incompetence of the German authorities in handling the situation, much bravery was clearly displayed by many people who tried to address the problem, and not least Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who offered himself as a hostage in replacement for the then nine hostages who were still alive. He actually went into the room at one point to check on the hostages’ welfare, but he failed to count the number of terrorists. Until the failed rescue at the military airfield later that night, the German authorities thought that they were dealing with five terrorists, not eight. They had five marksmen lined up at the military airfield to take out five terrorists, so they did not have enough to take out eight. Nowadays, there would be a lot more marksmen.
The marksmen who were put in place were not properly trained and did not have the proper rifles. There was no proper co-ordination. At the military airfield, the German police officers in the airliner that was going to take away the hostages and the terrorists voted, just 15 minutes before the operation was due to take place, to abort the mission and simply disappeared. The whole thing was tragically incompetent. Authorities around the world are now, thankfully, far better trained in knowing how to deal with such terrorist incidents.
Black September started as an Arab terrorist organisation by making attacks on Arab targets. Until 1972, Black September’s main dispute was not with Israel, but with the Jordanians. Black September actually assassinated the Jordanian Prime Minister and caused all sorts of terrorist outrages in the Arab world. The origins of that horrific movement were actually in Arab-on-Arab violence, and only in 1972, when it was forced out of Jordan into Syria, and then into Beirut, did Black September take on the Israelis. One of the tragedies of the middle east in relation to the Palestinian cause, which we in the United Kingdom recognise as having merit—the UK Government’s position is that there should be a Palestinian state and a homeland for the Palestinians—is that Black September and the start of Palestinian terrorism has, to my mind, blackened the Palestinian cause. Furthering its dispute through terrorism was one of the many wrong decisions taken by the Palestinian movement.
I simply do not accept the reason given by the terrorists for the Munich massacre, which was to raise the profile of the Palestinian dispute among the audience of the world, as 1972 was only five years after the 1967 war, and it was less than a year before the 1973 Yom Kippur conflict. The world knew about the problems in the middle east and about the Palestinian struggle. It was simply illegitimate for the Palestinians to say that the only way to attract world attention was by committing such atrocities. It was one of the many wrong decisions taken by the Palestinians in the furtherance of their aims.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Palestinian terrorist campaign hardened the resolve of the Israeli Government and people not to give in? In actual fact, it was a backward step that did the very opposite of what the Palestinians were trying to achieve.
Mr Hollobone
It is of huge credit to the Israelis that when they were confronted with the horrendous hostage situation at the Munich Olympics, the then Prime Minister Golda Meir refused to negotiate with the terrorists, whereas the West Germans were all for having negotiations straight away. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred to the hijacking on 29 October, after the massacre—I think it was by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—about which there is strong evidence that the West German authorities liaised with terrorists to organise a hijack so that they would have an excuse to free the three remaining terrorists, who were then flown back to Libya.
One of the points in all this is the Libyan involvement in the Munich massacre. The terrorists came from Libya, they went back to Libya, and they were funded by Libya. Of course, Colonel Gaddafi was in charge of Libya at the time. How appalling to think that a major western country such as West Germany could collude with terrorist organisations to try to get itself out of the hole of holding terrorists in German jails.
The tragedy of the Munich Olympics is that, just 27 years after the holocaust, Jews were once again led to their deaths while bound and gagged on German soil. All that took place on live television and was seen on screens in people’s homes around the world. Clearly, the German authorities were embarrassed about it, but they handled it incompetently. The Israeli authorities, to their credit, refused to negotiate with the terrorists, and thus began the extremely hard line that Israel has taken with terrorists ever since.
It is completely wrong of Arab nations to applaud the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics. Even today, Palestinian groups hail as martyrs the terrorists who were killed, and hold up the Munich attack as a good example of the sort of activity that Palestinians should undertake to highlight their cause. That is completely wrongheaded. Would not it have been wonderful, on the 40th anniversary of the massacre, for the Arab League to come out with a statement condemning the events in Munich in 1972? If we are ever to get a resolution to the middle east crisis, we will need such gestures from the Arab world as an attempt to go some way towards healing the wounds of the past.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East on securing the debate and his excellent speech. I hope that the Olympic authorities can find some way to commemorate those horrendous events of 40 years ago.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) not just on securing the debate and on the informed and eloquent way in which he has spoken but on putting this issue on the parliamentary and political agenda over the past six months in many different ways across the country. It is a great credit to him that he has done so so effectively, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for giving us this opportunity to participate in this debate today.
Like the hon. Gentleman, as a young child I watched the events in 1972. This year, older and wealthier, I had the opportunity to purchase tickets to see the Olympics at first hand. As he said, it was a wonderful experience. It made me think what the reaction would have been if there were a comparable terrorist outrage at the London Olympics. If, in whatever way, a terrorist or a terrorist cell had managed to kidnap and murder athletes, coaches or officials from whichever country, it would have been a rather big event. We would have reflected on it not just in this House, but in the country for many, many decades; we would not forget it.
If, in 1972, it had been 11 Americans or Britons, Germans, French, Canadians, Chinese or Russians who had been murdered, there would have been, in some way, a small symbolic but significant reference to it in every Olympics. I do not have a view on how such symbolism should be represented; it is not my place to have such a view. None the less, the principle of having such a reference would have arisen.
A term that is used, not least by members of the International Olympic Committee, is “the Olympic family”. There have not been many Olympics, so there have not been many opportunities for such outrages. There have not been many Olympians in the history of the modern Olympics. Proportionate to the Olympic family, this is a major and thankfully unprecedented event—all would hope and pray that it will remain unprecedented. It is all the more incongruous therefore that it is not appropriately symbolised in some way. Indeed, the Olympics are full of symbolism. I have not watched many opening ceremonies in the past. I seem to recall Mr Ali in Atlanta. In our own splendid opening ceremony, was not the flag of Greece raised and the Greek national anthem played? Doubtless, that was a symbolic gesture in recognition of the fact that both the ancient and the modern Olympics originated in Greece. I was a little taken aback—perhaps I should have been more up on my Olympic history to realise that. None the less, I duly sat in silence and watched and observed and paid due homage. I have no objection to that whatever, but if such symbolism and historic reference can be achieved, then not to manage to work in, in an appropriate way, recognition of this outrage is wrong. The Olympic movement has a bit of history when it comes to problems in dealing with Jews and anti-Semitism, so it is even more wrong that it failed to do so.
The real outrage—I use that word more modestly this time—are the excuses that were given, such as there will be some people who would object. That is the nub of the problem. Who would object? Which athlete from the family would object to recognising the murder within our lifetime of other members of the Olympic family at the Olympics? Anyone who would object has no place in an Olympic games. People would not dare to object even if their countries had Governments or dictatorships that might like them to do so. There is a duty, or a responsibility, on this great Olympic family to learn from the mistakes that the IOC has made in London and to ensure that they are not repeated in future.
I do not care precisely how these events are recognised, as long as it is done in a way that gives true significance to the fact that this could happen in a recent Olympics—thankfully, it did not happen on our watch—and the Olympic family will be all the stronger because of that recognition .
Double standards when it comes to Jewish people and Israel have no place in the modern world. We see double standards when it comes to anything Israeli, and that is a major problem. The Olympic ideal should counter that in its very essence, which is why I commend those who have campaigned for the measure. I hope, and I am sure that we can ensure, that the IOC gets to hear about and read our deliberations today, so that it can act more appropriately in future.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Like the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I deeply regret the failure by the International Olympic Committee to commemorate properly the 40th anniversary of the murder not only of 11 Israeli athletes and team members but of a West German policeman at the Munich Olympiad in 1972.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) pointed out in his excellent opening speech, it is especially apposite to bring this issue to public attention today as it is the 40th anniversary of the massacre; it is exactly four decades ago that those terrible events began to unfold. At that time, I was a seven-year-old schoolboy. However, as someone of part-German heritage, I recall the great hope that surrounded those Olympic games. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) pointed out, people had memories not only of the war but of the previous German Olympiad of 1936, which took place only 36 years before the Munich Olympics—some of the disgrace that the 1936 games brought to the Olympic movement was very much going to be laid to rest. We had a modern Munich—a modern Bavarian city—and an outward-looking West Germany. It was a time to remember the past but also—rightly—a time to look to the future. Of course, all of that hope was shattered by the Palestinian terrorism and the bitter irony of young and hopeful Israeli Jews perishing on German soil.
The Olympic games are precisely the right occasion to remember and commemorate the events of 1972. I fear that the IOC may have felt that to do so would be too sensitive for Arab nations, especially in view of the much-vaunted so-called Arab spring of the past 18 months or so. It is particularly ironic that the Black September terrorists were initially funded out of Egypt, bringing Yasser Arafat, among others, to international attention.
I used the term “the so-called Arab spring” advisedly. There has been a huge amount of naivety from western Governments, including at times our own Government, about what has happened and what is currently happening in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Ms Dorries, I hope you will forgive me if I say a few words about these issues.
It seems to me that in planning the 9/11 attacks, which took place 11 years ago next week, Osama bin Laden was realistic. His hope was not to bring the US down, or to bring it to its knees. It was to show the populations in the Arab world that the mighty US was not as invincible as many people thought and to encourage uprisings against US-backed leaders. To that extent, I fear that—a decade or so on from bin Laden’s terrible work on 9/11—the so-called Arab spring has not led to some great rush to democracy but has become little more than a power-play against western-backed leaders, bringing forth what are often more aggressive and far more violent regimes.
We are at a very early stage of all of this and, as I have said, there has been a lot of naivety about what is coming into play. It is happening in Egypt and Libya. We are seeing what is happening—before our very eyes—in Syria. I just say that, as we commemorate the events of 1972, some people may accuse us of talking about just one section of world humanity, the Jewish population. My worry about what is happening out in the Arab world today is that there are Christian populations that have been there for many years; in Syria, there have been Christian populations for virtually 2,000 years. St Paul himself started promulgating Christianity in the first few decades after the death of Christ in territory that is now modern-day Syria. That population of some two million Christian people in Syria is under immense threat. Ironically—because that population has not been under any threat whatsoever under the Assad regime—it is the so-called Free Syrian Army and elements of that rag-tag group that are proving a great threat to the Christian population of Syria.
We should not forget the 9 million Coptic Christians living in Egypt either. My fear about the great upheaval in that part of the world is that, within a decade or so, many of those Christians will have to go into exile from their homelands, which, as I say, have in many cases been their home for virtually 2,000 years.
It is important that we look at this issue in the context of what is going on in the Arab world. As I say, there are elements in Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Egypt that all of us would support, but there are also elements that are a far greater danger to the stability that we would all like to see in the region in future. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for securing this apposite debate. It is regrettable that the IOC has sought to put elements of political correctness before a proper commemoration of one of the darkest days of the Olympic movement. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we should all celebrate a wonderful London Olympiad and a wonderful London Paralympic games that still has another five or six days to run, but it is also right that we should take this opportunity to commemorate and remember the terrible events that took place exactly four decades ago today.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. I want to make only a brief contribution, but I feel very strongly that I should put my views on the record. The Olympics were an incredible moment for our country. It was a brief period when we took a break from our favourite national pastime—talking Britain down. We reminded ourselves of what we can achieve when we put our mind to it. I have to say that “family Evans”—the five of us—were watching the opening ceremony and my nine-year-old turned round to me and said, “Dad, doesn’t it make you proud to be British?” I said, “It does, son.” Then we saw Mr Bean and my five-year-old little girl erupted in laughter and said, “He’s funny.” Then we saw Her Majesty jumping out of an aeroplane and I had to reassure the rest of the family that Her Majesty does not normally jump out of aeroplanes.
For many people, however, one of the highlights of the Olympics was the excellent opening ceremony, as I have just described. It was not just an amazing spectacle that helped to suspend our scepticism. It also contained many moving moments, none more so than—as has already been said—the tribute to the people who lost their lives in the 7/7 bombings in London. However, that tribute also highlighted something else—the deafening silence about what happened 40 years ago in Munich, when a Palestinian terrorist group, Black September, murdered 11 Israeli athletes and one German police officer. Surviving murderers were eventually released and allowed to return to a hero’s welcome, giving a global press conference in which they were able to glorify murder and terrorism.
Such appalling events should not be forgotten. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to speak at a memorial event for those who lost their lives. What possible argument could anyone make for not wanting to remember the senseless murders of young innocent men who had simply wanted to compete in the Olympics and who were murdered simply because they were Israeli?
The International Olympic Committee has said:
“We must consider what this could do to other delegations that are hostile to Israel.”
In my view, that is simply unacceptable. If someone is prepared to boycott the Olympics because of a simple memorial for murdered Israelis, why would we want them to attend anyway? A minute’s silence in front of athletes from all over the world could have been more than just an appropriate time to remember those who were killed; it would have helped to encourage a sense of unity between nations. Sadly, the IOC showed a complete lack of moral leadership. At least, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who secured the debate, we are remembering in Parliament what happened 40 years ago today.
Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it and on being so actively engaged for 10 years in the procuring for and planning of the Olympics.
Obviously, the Munich massacre has been a recurrent preoccupation and concern. This occasion is remarkable and noteworthy. When I was in government, I had the privileged responsibility of supporting the bereaved families of those who suffered as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and of the 52 innocent Londoners who died on 7 July 2005, as well as a similarly privileged association with families bereaved in the Bali bombings and the tsunami, albeit that was not related to terrorism. I therefore have personal experience of the importance of anniversaries and of a sense of place that enables people to gather together. Next Tuesday, we shall mark the 11th anniversary of the loss of 67 lives in New York. We should never forget that. In a way, such atrocities are too easily absorbed into the everyday narrative of our shared history.
The reason why the timing of the debate is so important is that there will probably not be in our lifetimes another Olympic moment like this summer in London in which we can restate our horror at what happened, and its complete contradiction of the founding values of the Olympic movement. I believe—I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House share my view—that that movement has been a force for peace, and it is the antithesis of the behaviour of the Black September group that led to the death of 11 innocent Israelis.
The hon. Member for Harrow East remembered the names of the victims, and I, too, want to remember: Mark Slavin, who was only 18 years old when he died; Eliezer Halfin, his wrestling team mate; David Berger, Yossef Romano and Ze’ev Friedman, who were Israeli Olympic weightlifters; Amitzur Shapira, Kehat Shorr and Yakov Springer, who were athletics, fencing and weightlifting coaches; and Moshe Weinberg, Yossef Gutfreund and Andre Spitzer, who were referees. The group was representative of the people one would expect to be at the Olympics. I have been privileged to be a mayor of the Olympic village this summer and thus to live alongside athletes of every competing nation.
The event we are commemorating is an affront to the Talmud, which states that taking a single life is like destroying an entire world. Something of the innocence of the Olympic movement was lost on that day. Children lost their fathers, mothers lost their sons, and wives lost their husbands. As the ages of those who were killed suggest, lives with enormous potential were simply extinguished. We have only our sense of national outrage, and our private speculations about the potential that would never be realised. As with all such moments—9/11, 7/7 and September 1972—we can all remember where we were on that day 40 years ago, because the sense of incomprehensible tragedy and the violation of the very essence of the Olympics lives on in our collective memory. This was an attack on not just Israeli athletes, but on the values and spirit of the entire Olympic movement. The memory of the tragedy remains not just with the victims’ families, but with the whole Olympic family and the world beyond—and here, for a brief time, in our House of Commons, which is something of which we can all be proud.
One reason why London won its bid for the games is that we are proud of our diversity and tolerance, as has been demonstrated at every turn in the extraordinary few weeks of our Olympic summer. The city is home to people from every part of the world who practise every religion and follow every faith. In the Olympic athletes’ village—now the Paralympic village—such an intense representation of the whole world was there for everyone to see, from the flags outside the flats to the diversity of the diet in the dining hall, which was big enough to accommodate six football pitches. One touching observation came from the amazing polyclinic, which treated athletes from around the world. Every athlete was treated according to their need—this was no way of stealing a little competitive advantage for the home team. I vividly remember one of my last visits there when the Cameroon football team were having mouth guards made so that they would be properly equipped for the matches ahead.
We celebrate the fact that in our city 200 nationalities speak more than 300 languages, and that 200,000 Jews live alongside 600,000 Muslims. In some ways, our city is the embodiment of the Olympic ideal, where people of different faiths and cultures live in the same neighbourhoods, and where their children go to the same schools. As with the Olympic ideal, we seek to build our city around the values of equality, respect, friendship and courage. Whether Jew, Muslim, Christian or Hindu, we hope that those shared values allow us to recognise our communities’ potential and ambition, as well as to celebrate our differences. It is that character that has brought London and Londoners to embrace the Olympics and everything that they stand for, and to reject those who want to divide one community against another. It is a characteristic that has seen us through not just 7/7, but other moments in our history, when that precious part of our identity has been under threat.
We must also remember that for each surviving family of the 11 victims, this year’s Olympics will be another especially poignant reminder of what they suffered 40 years ago. The ambition of the Olympic and Paralympic games has always been more than to provide a festival of world-class sport; it has been, as the Olympic charter says,
“to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of”
man to promote “a peaceful society”. The Munich attacks were a gross betrayal of that ideal and of everything that the Olympics stand for. The degree of sustained outrage is a measure of how the Olympic movement, and the millions of people who have been inspired by it, have marked the anniversary in different ways.
In the Olympic village is the Olympic truce wall which, at the end of the games, bore the signatures of thousands of visitors, officials and Olympic athletes. I conducted some 16 welcome ceremonies for about 64 teams, and the ambition of peace, the Olympic games as a period of truce, and the invitation to sign the truce wall were fundamental messages in those ceremonies, which extended a welcome to teams from around the world.
We can all join in sharing this moment today, and I am delighted that you, Ms Dorries, and the Minister have agreed that we should mark it with a minute’s silence. I conclude by saying that every time our world is scarred by this kind of atrocity, it redoubles our shared effort and determination to achieve peace and tolerance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, in this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate, on the anniversary of the massacre in Munich 40 years ago.
As the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) said, we have just witnessed, in London, one of the most successful Olympic games of the modern era, hailed by athletes, officials, spectators and the International Olympic Committee as “the friendly games” and “happy and glorious”. We in London and the United Kingdom should be proud that we delivered not only a successful but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East pointed out in his opening remarks, a safe Olympic games. We set the stage for what has been, and continues to be, the most wonderful Paralympic games, the first in history for which the tickets have sold out. I was there this morning.
It is the horrible disjuncture with the joy and harmony of the Olympic games that we have experienced in London that makes the appalling events in Munich 40 years ago so shocking. It is absolutely right that we should remember the terrible events in Munich, and absolutely appropriate that we should be having this debate on this day. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East read out the names of the athletes and officials who were killed, but it is worth spending some time talking about the people who lost their lives in such a pointless act, and it is worth remembering also the West German police officer, Anton Fliegerbauer, who was killed in the execution of his duty.
It is worth remembering that although these were Israeli athletes and officials, they came from everywhere. They were American-born, Romanian-born, Polish-born, Libyan-born and Russian-born—many nations had an interest in them. Mark Slavin was the youngest victim, at only 18 years old. He was a Greco-Roman wrestling middleweight junior champion in the USSR, and in his first international competition for Israel. David Berger, an Israeli weightlifter, was born in America and had won a silver medal at the Asian weightlifting championships. He was a lawyer, and had studied at Tulane and Columbia universities. Romanian-born Yossef Gutfreund was a wrestling judge, in his third Olympics as a referee, and he planned to become a vet. He left behind a wife and two daughters. Yossef Romano, born in Libya, had been an Israeli weightlifting champion for nine years. He was also an interior decorator, and he left behind three children and a wife. Moshe Weinberg was a prize-winning wrestler and the coach of the Israeli Olympic wrestling team. Yakov Springer, the weightlifting coach, was born in Poland. He took part in the Warsaw ghetto uprising during the holocaust and made aliyah to Israel, along with his wife and two children, in 1957. The 1972 Olympics were his fifth games. As an international judge, he could have stayed outside the Olympic village, but he chose to share apartments with the Israeli delegation. Ze’ev Friedman was a flyweight weightlifter who came only 12th in his event but produced one of the best results of any Israeli athlete at the time. He was born in Poland towards the end of the second world war and moved with his family to Israel in 1960. Amitzur Shapira was the track coach. He was born in Israel and lived there with his wife and four children. Eliezer Halfin was only 24, and a wrestler. He was born in the Soviet Union, and became an Israeli citizen only seven months before he was killed. Kehat Shorr, the shooting coach, was born in Romania, and lived in Israel with his wife and daughter, and Andre Spitzer, the fencing referee, was also born in Romania and moved to Israel in 1964. His daughter, Anouk, was born only a few months before he was murdered.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East pointed out, there was a ceremony during the Olympic games. On Monday 6 August, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers, including the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is now the Secretary of State for Health, and myself—still a culture Minister, as far as I am aware—along with the Leader of the Opposition and the Mayor of London attended an event at the Guildhall in London to commemorate the events of 1972. The Prime Minister said:
“As the world comes together in London to celebrate the Games and the values it represents, it is right that we should stop and remember the 11 Israeli athletes who so tragically lost their lives when those values came under attack in Munich 40 years ago…Seven years on from 7/7, I am proud that as we speak, this great city of London, probably the most diverse city in the world”—
that echoes the words of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood earlier in the debate—
“is hosting athletes from 204 nations. And I am delighted that a strong Israeli team is among them.”
Many people spoke at the event, including the Mayor, and a minute’s silence was held. It was an extremely moving occasion, and I was delighted that the president of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, turned up to pay his respects. A few days earlier, he had stated:
“The 11 victims of the Munich tragedy... came to Munich in the spirit of peace and solidarity. We owe it to them to keep that spirit alive and to remember them.”
In July, the Mayor of London unveiled a commemorative plaque in Hackney, in remembrance of the athletes who tragically lost their lives at the Munich Olympics, and today the Foreign Secretary issued a statement commemorating those who were murdered.
The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood talked about the importance of the Olympic truce, and it should be noted that we have taken many steps to promote the truce in relation to London 2012. Although the Olympic truce is based on ancient Greek tradition, the IOC has revived it in modern times to recognise the global context of the games.
The Olympic truce seeks to protect, as far as possible, the interests of athletes and sport in general. I pay tribute to the determined efforts of my noble Friend Lord Bates to raise awareness of the truce. The UK-sponsored UN Olympic truce resolution was co-sponsored by all 193 UN member states on 17 October 2011, which was a record. The Government and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games have taken unprecedented action in support of the Olympic values and truce, both at home and internationally. Through the nations and regions group, run in partnership with LOCOG, the Government are promoting the principles of the Olympic truce through specific initiatives, such as Get Set, the London 2012 education programme, and the Inspire programme. Additionally, International Inspiration is delivering the games bid promise to reach young people across the world and to connect them to the inspirational power of the games through sport. The programme, delivered by the British Council, UK Sport and UNICEF, is now working in 20 countries across the world, and more than 12 million young people have been reached.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is co-ordinating the Government’s international response to the UN resolution on the Olympic truce and is determined to use this historic opportunity to raise awareness of the importance of conflict prevention and resolution by working with NGOs and civil society partners domestically to develop a number of creative initiatives for delivery overseas. Moreover, the UK’s overseas posts are looking for opportunities to emphasise the contribution of youth, women and those with disabilities to promoting peace through sport, culture, education, sustainable development and wider public engagement. Of course, the Government, with their allies and partners, continue to seek a just and lasting settlement in the middle east.
I pay tribute to the Members who made such powerful speeches during today’s debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I also pay tribute to the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They each made incredibly powerful contributions recalling the events of 40 years ago and pressing the case for the Munich massacre to be remembered appropriately at future Olympic games. I also pay tribute to their work in the House day in, day out to combat anti-Semitism.
I recognise that many people were disappointed that a minute’s silence was not held during the Olympic opening or closing ceremonies, but events that form part of the games are primarily for the International Olympic Committee, not for the Government of the host country. The British Government recognise the importance of remembering the tragic events at the Munich Olympics.
Terrorism in all its forms is completely unacceptable, and the Olympics should be an opportunity for people from across the world to come together in the spirit of peace and solidarity. We demonstrated that through our high-level attendance at the event on 6 August, which included a minute’s silence. The event was similar to those held at many Olympic games since 1972 and was an appropriate and respectful way to remember the Israeli athletes and officials who lost their lives so tragically. We recognise, however, that other people would like the International Olympic Committee to go further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made the point that commemorating tragic events in an opening ceremony is not unprecedented. During the opening ceremony in London there was a moment of reflection on the events of 7/7, the tragic bombing that took place so soon after we won the bid. Many people in the stadium, and many more watching at home across the world, will have been remembering others who could not be there with us to watch the opening of the games.
Before I conclude my remarks and we prepare for our minute’s silence, I will say something about the delivery of a superb London Olympic games and ongoing Paralympic games. I hope the House recognises that the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is entirely responsible for the Olympic and Paralympic games. I am privileged to serve with some of the officials who served her, and they fondly recall her being given clear and unequivocal advice, 10 years ago, that bidding for the Olympic and Paralympic games was a ridiculous idea that should not be pursued. They clearly remember their Secretary of State overruling that advice and going around Whitehall Departments to convince various members of her Cabinet, including the then Prime Minister, who was crucial, that bidding for the games was the right thing to do.
I am pleased that the bid had cross-party support, and I am delighted that men of the stature of Lord Coe and Paul Deighton came on board to deliver a fantastic Olympic and Paralympic games. I am pleased that Lord Coe and the soon-to-be Lord Deighton will work to deliver a lasting legacy, and I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has maintained her involvement in the Olympic games. She was a superb mayor of the Olympic village.
Mark Field
I do not doubt what everyone has said. The Olympics were a fantastic spectacle and were probably even better than many of us anticipated. They enlivened the spirit of people throughout our country and across the world. Does the Minister recognise that, as he has already touched on, the biggest issue is to ensure that we get the legacy right? That is not just the sporting legacy but, importantly, the infrastructure legacy. Without wishing to put a further burden on the shoulders of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), the real test will be whether, in 10 years’ time, we see the phenomenal improvements making that part of east London an exciting place to live, work and play.
Mr Vaizey
Absolutely. I recognise the achievement of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in putting together the bid and the subsequent delivery of the Olympic and Paralympic games with cross-party support. Legacy was at the forefront of the Olympic games; legacy was not an afterthought that people have just start thinking about. People were thinking about legacy from 2005, and perhaps even earlier when we were preparing the bid.
I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster says about legacy being an important test, and I am convinced that the key figures charged with delivering that legacy will do a superb job.
Jim Shannon
Legacy is not only about what happens in London and the infrastructure that is put in place, but about sport across the UK. The delivery of some sports is measured not only by medals. Will the Minister assure us that those sports that perhaps did not deliver in the medal table this time will receive the same money as other sports to ensure that, next time round, they can win and do well in the medal table?
Mr Vaizey
I am not actually the Sports Minister. I did not realise that by praising the Olympic games, I had effectively opened a debate on sport. I am tempted to yield the floor to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who as the Opposition Olympics spokesman probably knows more. What I can say is that one reason why we were so successful at the Olympic games and are being so successful at the Paralympics is that we have an uncharacteristically ruthless approach to supporting Olympic and Paralympic sports: we back success and not cul-de-sacs. However, each sport is important, and it is essential for any sporting legacy to recognise not just the Olympic and Paralympic sports in which we do well but those in which we do not do as well and those not classified as Olympic or Paralympic sports. As we all know, sport is a very good thing.
I echo the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in commending the servicemen and women who stepped in to support the games at short notice, and all the security personnel and police officers. The Mayor of London is so carried away by the success of the Olympics and Paralympics that last night, at an event that I attended, he praised G4S. The games have been our biggest peacetime logistical exercise. The story that has not been written is the fact that no serious incident took place during the Olympic or Paralympic games. That is something of which we can be extremely proud.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the 70,000 volunteers, who were absolutely astonishing—and are, as they are still doing the job. It is not just that they bothered to give up their time to support the Olympic and Paralympic games; it is the spirit in which they carried out the jobs that they were asked to do. They did them with such humour and good will that they enhanced the experience of people who went to the events.
In the shadow of the terrible events that we are commemorating, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering outlined the incidents in some detail and put them in their historical context. Although such events were unprecedented at the time, we have, unfortunately, become all too used to them now. At the games, security was of the utmost importance. It was sad but inevitable that there were armed policemen at the Olympic park and venues, but they did a superb job. We allocated an extra £475 million in policing and £553 million in venue security on top of existing investments to help us cope with any possible security effects. That is the cost and one of the legacies of that terrible day at the Munich Olympics.
To end on a positive note, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games—this is, in effect, the first debate in the House since the games began—have been inspirational for us in Britain, especially given Team GB’s huge haul of 65 Olympic medals, including 29 golds—the most in any Olympic games since 1908. With each day that passes at the Paralympics, Team GB is homing in on its own medal target. None of us could forget Mo Farah’s tremendously exciting wins in the 5,000 metres and 10,000 metres, the dominance of our cyclists on both road and track, our haul of equestrian and rowing medals, Andy Murray finally winning at Wimbledon—if that is not the Olympic effect, I do not know what is—Nicola Adams winning the first ever Olympic gold medal in women’s boxing or Jade Jones’s magic medal moment in tae kwon do.
In the Paralympics, we have seen Ellie Simmonds’s superb feats in the swimming pool and David Weir’s dramatic win in the T54 5,000 metres. My own special moment was making a boo-free delivery of flowers to Sarah Storey at the velodrome after she won gold. Usain Bolt’s double treble and Michael Phelps’s historic medal tally were other moments to treasure. In the spirit of this debate, I should also acknowledge the success of athletes from nations other than Britain.
Jim Shannon
Peter Wilson also won the gold in shooting, a first for Team GB in many years. That was a great occasion as well.
Mr Vaizey
It was amazing. I watched him win that gold on television while at home looking after my children. One could not turn on the television without seeing a British athlete on the verge of winning a gold medal. It was fantastic.
It was also wonderful to see radio and TV coverage of how the games were firing many of our children with enthusiasm and ambition for the athletic feats they had witnessed. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale has young children, so I have a small tip for him when looking after them: set Olympic heats. Get them running up and down in the street outside and time them. One can pass about two hours like that while reading the paper.
The games would not have happened without seven years of effort by the Olympic Delivery Authority, LOCOG, and their staff and contractors. I always said that 2012 would be the year when the UK got its confidence back. What could be a better symbol of modern Britain’s ability to deliver complex projects? It has been a fine advertisement for the UK construction industry. The opening and closing ceremonies, the Cultural Olympiad and the London 2012 festival are still providing something close to my heart: a showcase for our vibrant cultural sector and creative industries. Even the weather, after a damp early summer, decided to play its part by being kind to us, and the roads and public transport system coped admirably. The games would not have been the success they were without cross-party support. Everyone got behind them.
This important debate is drawing to an end. To recall what I said at the beginning, the massacre at the Munich Olympics was an unprecedented event of enormous tragedy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for having the foresight to secure this debate on this day, the 40th anniversary of that massacre. It is important that we commemorate what happened, and that hon. Members feel free to put their points forcefully to the International Olympic Committee. I stand with him in hoping that the IOC has heard what he and all our colleagues have said. We should also not lose sight of the fact that the Olympics are a unique sporting occasion capable of bringing together the nations of the world. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and to everyone who made the London Olympic and Paralympic games such an extraordinary success.