Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1982

Vol. 336 No. 2

Situation in Lebanon: Statement by Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

Immediately before I left for New York to address the Second Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Disarmament on 11 June, I said that I would favour a debate in this House as soon as possible after my return on developments in Lebanon, where more than 700 Irish troops are serving with the United Nations Interim Force.

In the United States I was accompanied by Deputy Gerard Collins, Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have deposited in the Library of the House a copy of my address to the General Assembly.

On Sunday, 6 June, the Israeli Army invaded Lebanon and moved, in strength, through areas occupied by UNIFIL in conformity with the mandate given to that Force by the United Nations.

This mandate is based on resolutions passed by the Security Council in March and May 1978, which called for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon, within its internationally recognised boundaries, and asked that Israel should immediately cease its military action and withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory. The Security Council also decided, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force for Southern Lebanon:

for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli Forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

The May Resolution approved an increase in the strength of UNIFIL from 4,000 to approximately 6,000 troops and called upon Israel to complete its withdrawal from all Lebanese territory without further delay. The Resolution also deplored the attacks on the United Nations Force that had occurred and demanded full respect for the Force from all parties in the Lebanon. The Force was further recently increased to its present strength of 7,000, including an Irish contingent of 720.

These Resolutions make clear that the basic purpose of UNIFIL is peace-keeping and not peace enforcement. In any event, the size of the Force and their equipment are such as to make it patently impossible for them to withstand the attack of a vastly greater and better equipped modern army. In a statement issued immediately following the Israeli invasion, the Government made clear our view that UNIFIL are properly discharging their designated function in the face of a very difficult situation.

I should say here, for the information of the House, that our contingent are faced with no immediate danger and that in response to representations made by us to the Israeli authorities, the Israelis have officially responded that they do not foresee any danger to Irish troops. The Irish contingent have throughout these hostilities carried out as far as possible their normal activities in the area of operations. They continue to man their posts, protect the civilian population, make humanitarian efforts in co-operation with the Government of Lebanon and relevant agencies and maintain contact with all parties with a view to maintaining order at local level. Our latest information is that the small number of Irish residents in the Lebanon are also safe.

As members of the European Community, we joined on 9 June in vigorously condemning the Israeli invasion which, like the bombardment which preceded it, has caused very great loss of human life and constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the most basic humanitarian principles. In that statement, copies of which I have communicated to the leaders of the other parties in this House, the Community reaffirmed the importance they attach to the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of Lebanon, which are indispensable for peace in the region. We called, in particular, on Israel to withdraw all its forces immediately and unconditionally from the Lebanon and place UNIFIL in a position to accomplish their mission without hindrance. The statement indicated that should Israel continue to refuse compliance, the Ten would examine the possibilities for future action.

The statement further indicated that the objective of the Ten is to work for a Lebanon free from violence. This cannot be dissociated from the establishment of a global, just and lasting peace in the region. The Ten indicated their readiness to assist in bringing the parties concerned to accept measures intended to lower the level of tension, re-establish confidence and facilitate a negotiated solution. Prior to this, the United Nations Security Council adopted, by a vote of 15 to zero, a resolution sponsored by Ireland calling for the complete and unconditional withdrawal of the Israeli Forces back to the internationally recognised boundaries.

Consultations have continued among the Ten and in the course of diplomatic contacts between the Belgian Presidency and Israel, the Ten have made it known that they expect Israel to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Lebanese territory in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 508 and 509. In the immediate situation the Ten have asked Israel to facilitate the work of humanitarian relief organisations in occupied Lebanese territory, to facilitate the media in their task of reporting on the situation, to apply the Geneva Conventions as regards the treatment of prisoners and to co-operate fully with the UN Secretary General. They have asked Israel to respect Lebanese sovereignty and independence, to affirm that it does not intend offensive action against other neighbouring countries and that it has no hostile intentions towards the Palestinian people. They have also asked Israel to observe the cease-fire as long as other combatants in the region do likewise.

This, briefly, is the legal or institutional background to what has happened. There are, of course, other considerations. First, the events of the past few weeks are but the latest manifestation of the long-standing dispute between the Arab States and the Palestinian people, on the one hand, and Israel on the other. The Government intend to adhere firmly to the policy, which has been elaborated over the years, and is enunciated clearly in the Venice declaration of June 1980. The central elements of that declaration are, as Deputies will recall, recognition of the right of all States in the area, including Israel, to a secure and peaceful existence and recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to full self-determination. Ireland recognises the role of the PLO in representing the Palestinian people in negotiations for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East.

Next, on a wider plane, the strategic and economic importance of the area makes continued conflict and instability there a matter of concern for the whole world. These wider implications must be taken into account. They affect regions and considerations infinitely greater than the area devastated by the present conflict. Indeed, there is virtually no limit to the consequences for the world of an extension of the conflict.

Further, and by no means least, there are the purely humanitarian issues of those afflicted by the present invasion — the wounded and the refugees. This problem is assuming really tragic proportions. The numbers affected are measured in their hundreds of thousands. There are shortages of food, water, medical supplies, shelter and clothing. A whole society is in a state of total disarray, if not disintegration. The Ten are already examining, within their institutions, the means of giving aid to the victims. In so far as Ireland is concerned, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has announced that we will contribute a sum of £100,000 from the Disaster Relief Fund to the Irish Red Cross in response to its appeal, on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross, for the provision of medical care, food and temporary shelter for persons injured or displaced following the Israeli invasion.

Finally, there is the question of the future of UNIFIL and indeed of UN peace-keeping efforts generally. On the present occasion, UNIFIL were simply brushed aside by vastly superior armed contingents. A peace-keeping force can exist and perform its functions only in so far as it is accepted by the community of nations. It acts through consensus and moral authority. The neglect or refusal of even one member to accept the basic principles on which the United Nations acts can, as in the present instance, render its efforts futile. Apart from raising the question of what then follows — and in the ultimate only overwhelming and irrational force can supplant the rule of law and international order — these developments raise, in the most serious way, questions as to the role and future of UNIFIL, which I discussed at length, and in detail, with the United Nations Secretary General, Senor Perez de Cuellar, in New York on 11 June.

During these discussions, which also covered the implications of the present conflict for the Iran and Iraq confrontation, I emphasised our concern for the preservation and enhancement of the function of the United Nations in lowering international tension and preventing or limiting war. As I said, in my address on disarmament, man has always had to live with the prospect of his death as an individual, but today, mankind has to live with the prospect of its extinction. That is the nature of the threat we face. The United Nations is the one institution, with world-wide membership, devoted to the resolution of conflict before it becomes conflagration. I assured the Secretary General that, while keeping the present situation under continuous review, we would maintain our contingent in UNIFIL in place, pending clarification of the Mandate — unless something at present entirely unforeseen happens, which makes the maintenance of the Force impossible.

Ireland remains committed to peace-keeping and to UNIFIL in particular. But as things stand, UNIFIL cannot fulfill their mandate. They occupy a territory where order and the basic infrastructure for living have been virtually destroyed. In the immediate future and until the situation is clarified, UNIFIL should not, of course, be withdrawn precipitately. But in the long term, it would be hard to see much point in leaving them if they have no authority to act. There would also be little point in returning to the previous situation where UNIFIL were never allowed to deploy fully in the area for which they had been given responsibility but were instead subjected to harassment as they carried out their functions.

On the other hand, I was very conscious during my discussions in the United States of the widespread feeling on all sides that even after what has happened UNIFIL represent an important potential for order in a fundamentally disturbed region. As a core of stability, they provide some basis for hope. But as an authoritative UN source put it, the usefulness and effectiveness of the Force is proportionate to the degree to which it is accepted by the participants in the conflict and the extent to which the countries with influence in the area, and the members of the UN in general, give it support.

If these basic propositions are accepted, the question arises of the best course to follow now. What is essential in the region is that some force for stability should exist while the causes of the present conflict are examined, and in time, and with patience, eliminated. This, of course, involves not only the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Lebanon but relations between other states in the region, as well, which are embittered and destabilised by the persistence of uncertainty and the continuing potential for full-scale war. Fear and tension thrive on insecurity; and violence is a disease which cannot be limited by more violence.

It is, of course, clear that UNIFIL must not be put in a position of ensuring or safeguarding on behalf of any state, territory acquired by force and in flagrant breach of international law. That could not be part of any UN mandate even by implication. Accordingly, it is vital that Israel withdraw its forces completely from Lebanon as it is required to do under the Security Council Resolution which Ireland proposed and which the Council adopted unanimously. It is vital too that the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon be preserved.

A question now arises as to how best the UN can help in achieving these aims. One course which the Security Council might consider — if the Government of Lebanon so desire—could perhaps be to establish a larger force with a mandate covering in addition to the present UNIFIL territory the wider area through which the recent battles have raged. What is certainly essential in the region is that some kind of stability should be re-established and the basic causes of the conflict addressed so that progress can be made towards their resolution.

These are the questions to which the community of nations must now look. The role of UNIFIL will be the subject of debate in the Security Council on or before 19 June when the renewal of the mandate is due to come up for consideration; and Ireland as a member of the Council will, of course, maintain close contact with other members and with the Secretary General on this matter and will play its full part in that consideration.

I am glad of the opportunity afforded me by this occasion to hear the views of Deputies in this House on this important issue and on the larger issues on which I have touched.

Mr. Deasy

On behalf of the Fine Gael Party I wish to join with the Government and the Security Council of the United Nations in the condemnation of Israeli aggression in the Lebanon. In no way can the attempted assassination of Ambassador Argov be seen as a justification for this monstrous invasion, which appears to have little regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. The estimated figures of 10,000 dead, 30,000 wounded and 600,000 homeless are horrific taken in the context of a ten-day war. To date the Israelis' reaction increasingly has the appearance of attempted wholesale genocide of the Palestinian people in Lebanon in the pursuit of what can be only a limited peace and it is totally unacceptable to all mankind. Their efforts to exterminate the PLO cannot succeed, given the mobility and character of such an organisation, and their efforts to do so at enormous cost to the civilian population are criminal.

The manner in which Israel has completely ignored resolutions of the Security Council for a ceasefire and immediate withdrawal has illustrated utter contempt for world opinion. We are thankful that the UNIFIL Forces in Southern Lebanon, and the Irish contingent in particular, have not suffered any serious casualties over the past ten days. However, the manner in which they have been brushed aside by the Israeli armoured columns is an indication of that country's total disregard for the authority of the United Nations.

Since the UN mandate is up for renewal on June 19 — this week — serious consideration must be given to the redeployment of the 7,000 strong force involved. We feel that the force should be retained, but that they might be better located elsewhere in the Lebanon — for example — in Beirut and, in particular, West Beirut.

It would appear that Israel is in control of the 25-mile strip south of the Litani River formerly occupied by UNIFIL and PLO and Right Wing irregulars and it is unlikely that further artillery attacks on Israeli settlements can be launched from the area on a systematic basis, as has been the case for the past four years. While talking about this area, reference must be made to the gross interference in the UN operation by the Christian Right Wing Forces led by Major Haddad and financed and armed by the Israelis. Their presence has undermined the role of the UNIFIL force, preventing them from carrying out their mandate, and has been directly responsible for a number of deaths in that force, including, it is to be regretted, a number of Irish soldiers. Despite repeated requests from the UN, Israel has never made any attempt to curtail the activities of Haddad's forces, which are obviously under their direct control. Proof of this, if proof were needed, is the manner in which the Israelis handed over the captured PLO stronghold, Beaufort Castle, to Major Haddad in the early stages of the offensive.

The redeployment of the UNIFIL forces cannot be exactly determined until we have a more clear-cut picture of Israel's intentions, the eventual extent of PLO and Palestinian presence in Lebanon, the future role, if any, of the Syrian Army in Lebanon, and the possibility of a stable Lebanese state without interference from Israel, PLO or Syria. The latter — that is the foundation of a stable Lebanese state — would certainly be the most desirable outcome and it is just possible that it can be achieved once again on a coalition basis, despite the memories of the horrors of the 1975-76 civil war. There must be a real hope that, with the exclusion of the Israelis, PLO and Syrians, the Right Wing Lebanese will agree to live together in peace and harmony.

Resolution No. 425 of March 1978 laid down three conditions for sending the UNIFIL force to Southern Lebanon: (1) to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces (2) to ensure international peace and security, (3) to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring their effective authority in the area. At that time the Israeli force withdrew but international peace and security were not restored and the Government of Lebanon has hardly functioned in the interim period. There has been really no effective authority in large parts of Lebanon, particularly Southern Lebanon, since that Israeli incursion and we must face up to the fact that instability has been the result of the actions of the PLO and their continuous bombardments. Parts of Lebanon, particularly the Beka'a Valley, have been occupied by 30,000 Syrian troops and until they are withdrawn the objective of the Resolution cannot be fulfilled. They constitute a threat to the sovereignty of Lebanon, just as do the PLO and more recently the Israelis. There are three primary factors involved, not just one. We must bear this in mind and make every effort to see that there is a sovereign state in Lebanon governed by the Lebanese.

I must voice my party's considerable concern about the future of the Palestinians remaining in Lebanon. There are indications that the Israelis may attempt to exterminate any of these who they suspect are members or supporters of the PLO. This cannot be tolerated and we are requesting the Irish Government to have UN observers located without delay in west Beirut and other areas of conflict to ensure that such a policy of extermination cannot be pursued. In addition, we are extremely worried that Red Cross workers and supplies are not reaching the homeless and the wounded in anything like sufficient quantities and we are requesting that the Government urgently examine this matter.

We appreciate that the Government have made £100,000 available to the Red Cross but we are very perturbed that the only route for medical supplies and relief to the affected areas is through Israel. We know that there are large supplies available in Cyprus and that the Red Cross are very anxious that they be shipped immediately to these areas. Because of the insecurity in the Beirut area this has not been done so far. We are very perturbed about this and should like to see the matter rectified immediately. We urge the Government to play a strong role in this regard because obviously there is immense suffering in this general area. We have read about starvation, lack of water supplies and the destruction of housing.

We all know there is no easy answer to the Palestinian problem but surely the time has come to press for a lasting solution. The Taoiseach referred in his speech to the Venice Declaration of June 1980 and stated:

The central elements of that declatation are, as Deputies will recall, recognition of the right of all States in the area, including Israel, to a secure and peaceful existence and recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to full self-determination.

Those sentiments are very fine but I have yet to see any definite plan outlined which will provide that type of self-determination. It has not been defined in any form and we must have a definition of what is to happen to the Palestinian people and how they are to achieve self-determination. It is very important that this be spelled out.

This lasting solution can only come about with the formation of an autonomous Palestinian State. The Palestinians over the years have been driven out of Israel; they are not wanted in Egypt; they have been driven out of Jordan. The Jordanians set about eradicating the PLO and in the subsequent purge hundreds of PLO members and Palestinians were killed. Apparently the Palestinians were not wanted even by Syria, supposedly their closest ally. Recently Syria's assistance to the PLO in their struggle with the Israelis has been rather muted and it is suspected that they are not too anxious to aid them. It all results in the Palestinians having no place to go if they are hunted out of Lebanon and some effort must be made to find them a homeland, a state of their own, and to give them the right to self-determination.

Driving the Palestinians from Lebanon is not solving a problem for Israel; it is merely transferring it to another theatre of war. We, together with our fellow members of the UN, must press much more strongly for the foundation of an autonomous State for the Palestinians. We must do this in the interests of justice and in a renewed effort to stop repeated carnage on a massive scale such as we have witnessed during the past 10 days. Unless there is a lasting solution the same thing will happen every couple of years, whether the Palestinians are in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or other parts of the Arab world. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are two areas which, combined, could fulfil this ambition. Of course, there will be opposition from Israel but life, whether it be for individals or races, is very much a thing of compromise. We as a nation should be to the forefront in getting all other countries, including the United States, who exert such influence over Israel and who have such a major role to play, to press for such a solution and to have Palestinians and Israelites living as neighbours in peace.

It is in the interests of peace in the Middle East and stability in the world that such tough straight talking be carried out immediately. The combined effects of the Gulf War and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon have created a powder keg in the Middle East, with the fanatical Iranians fresh from their victory over Iraq strongly contemplating a policy of hot pursuit in their bid to overthrow President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and offering to provide military support, including troops, to the PLO in their battle against the Israelis. When we consider the panic that has stricken Jordan and the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, at the emergence of Iran as unexpected victors in the Gulf War, we can visualise the enormous dangers in that area. The insatiable desire of the mullahs to create an Islamic empire is frightening but realistic when one considers the wealth, spoils and territorial gains involved. We all assumed at the commencement of that war that the Iraqis who initiated it would emerge as victors and they received material support from the Gulf States and Jordan. Now that they have been unexpectedly defeated the Iranians are quite likely to look for their pound of flesh. States in that area who were previously opposed to the Iranians are now living in dread of a further advance by Iran, not just into Iraq but into the Gulf States and Jordan.

It is interesting to note how the Soviet Union switched their allegience during the course of the Gulf War to back Iran rather than Iraq. They have moved from a position in which they were supplying the Iraqis with weapons — almost their total armament was supplied by the Societ Union — to a situation where they are indirectly supplying the Iranians with arms. Such an unholy alliance bodes no good for the free world and the United States would do well to take stark notice of this fact. It behoves the US to use its influence with Israel to adopt a more reasonable and humane attitude to the Palestinian problem. If this involves compromise and a return of lands conquered then so be it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

At the outset, I should like to indicate support for the Security Council Resolutions 508 and 509 which called for a cessation of hostilities and the unconditional withdrawal by Israel of all its forces to the internationally recognised boundaries of the Lebanon.

The UNIFIL peace-keeping force established in March 1978 by Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426 was set up on the promise of a withdrawal by Israeli forces for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of their effective authority in the area. Resolution 425 also called for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognised boundaries.

The role of the UNIFIL force was to police the buffer zone in southern Lebanon. It was never intended to deal with a full-scale invasion. Despite numerous violations by both Israel and the PLO the force managed to maintain a fragile peace in Lebanon.

The Israeli defence of their massive assault on Lebanon is that it was an act of self defence in face of continued shelling of towns in Northern Galilee by the PLO and various other acts of terrorism culminating in the attack on their ambassador in London. It must be recognised that the PLO also carried out terrorist attacks against the civilian population in Israel over the past few years.

The PLO have maintained that Israel has never seriously maintained the cease-fire and has actively encouraged the Christian Falangist forces to increase the territory under their control in southern Lebanon. The conclusion we come to is that Lebanon is a tragic casualty of a failure by Israel and her Arab neighbours to come to any working settlement of the Palestinian question. They are a stateless people who were forced to move from Jordan to Lebanon because of the tensions their presence created between Israel and Jordan. There can be no doubt that the presence of the PLO in Lebanon since 1968 has contributed to the destabilisation process in that country.

The latest attempts by Israel to secure its territory from attack is totally unjustifiable in that it will undoubtedly set back any hopes of a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question for a long time to come and will be a major obstacle to achieving that settlement. It will not contribute in the long run to the security of the Israel state.

This invasion is no mere punitive expedition to check the PLO or contain them. The intent of the Israeli invasion seems to be the realisation of the objective of turning all of Lebanon into a vassal State cleared of Palestinians and owing allegiance only to Tel Aviv. The political map of the new vassal state of Lebanon is becoming apparent. It will be bisected by the line running from the centre of Beirut through the Lebanese mountains along the Damascus highway. Everything south of the line would belong to Israel or to whatever surrogate authority in the region might be designated. North of Beirut would be the area controlled by the Falange. To the north west would lie a smaller enclave presumably reserved for the Syrians.

This new political division of Lebanon is obviously directed towards the total elimination of the PLO. The question I should like to ask is whether the destruction of the PLO will remove the Palestinian threat to the Israeli state. Will the grievances of the Palestinian people be settled by the destruction of the PLO? I am not convinced that the answer to either of these questions can be given in the affirmative. Peace in the region depends on justice for the Palestinians and security for the Israeli state. Neither objectives can be met by the physical destruction of the PLO. If the present PLO leadership is removed and their political base destroyed, a regrouping is to be anticipated in the future, possibly in the new region under the control of Syria.

The achievement of a comprehensive peace settlement covering the entire Middle East region requires the inclusion of the PLO view in any negotiations. The absence of an authentic political expression of the Palestinian case in any peace process leading to settlement would leave the future of Israeli security without an effective guarantee of a lasting peace.

The Israeli invasion has increased the danger of escalation of the situation in the Middle East to the scale of a world-wide conflict, as other states in the region may retaliate against the Israeli action. Any such retaliation could involve the consequence that the two super powers who have vital interests in the region might become involved. While there is no doubt that Israel has achieved its short-term objective of securing its northern towns against attack from the PLO, the invasion has done nothing to solve the basic problem confronting Israel. That problem still is, how does Israel live in peace with its neighbours? The Israeli state will never enjoy long-term security as long as the present military direction in policy is pursued.

The neutralisation of the PLO as a military force will be counterbalanced by the increased hostility of the Arab world and other Middle East states towards Israel. Already Iran has pledged to support the PLO. They may be militarily defeated but the political problem of the Palestinian people will remain. In the long-term interest of its own security, will Israel not have to eventually negotiate a political settlement which must concern itself with statehood for the Palestinian people?

The Israeli action has seriously alarmed both the United States and the Soviet Union who fear the possible escalation of the conflict. The joint statement on behalf of the EEC issued on 9 June vigorously condemned the latest invasion of Lebanon, pointing out that it constituted a flagrant violation of international law and the most basic humanitarian principles. It also called for the immediate unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli forces and that UNIFIL forces be put in a position to accomplish their mission without hindrance.

European Community member states, through the Council of Ministers, have sought to promote new basic principles for peace in the Middle East, firstly, the right to existence of all the states in the region, including Israel, and, secondly, justice for all peoples, including recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. On these principles the Ten believe a peaceful settlement can be construed.

The PLO will have to be associated with negotiations in any peace settlement. That is the view of the EEC and it is also my view. However, in line with the two basic principles the PLO and the Palestinian people must recognise in the course of any negotiations the basic right of the State of Israel to exist. Recognition by Israel of the PLO's right to be included in negotiations is fundamental to persuading the Palestinian people that they can peacefully co-exist with Israel in future. The mandate of the UNIFIL forces expires on Saturday. It must now be open to doubt if this mandate can be renewed. Israel has not indicated its support for a renewal of the mandate and has given no indication that it will abide by Resolutions 508 or 509.

It must be admitted that the present situation has serious consequences for the future of the UN's peace-keeping role in areas of conflict. The Israelis appear to be prepared to discard the United Nations in favour of a multinational force. However, the future of the UN itself would be undermined if a country can flout the resolutions of the Security Council which have unanimous support and dictate the composition of peace-keeping forces in the territory which it has just invaded.

Israel will have to accept the authority of the UN force, even if it does not respect it. If necessary the force could be increased and its terms of reference expanded to include the right to take initiatives to prevent violations of a ceasefire. I would urge our Ambassador at the UN to explore the extent of any support for such an initiative.

The peace which has been established between Israel and Egypt was, among other reasons, secured because the then Prime Minister of Egypt, President Sadat, was willing to take political risks in the interests of peace. The Israeli Government have enforced the terms of the peace settlement and have thereby spared their people from future military conflicts with Egypt.

Now is the time for the Israeli Government after what is undoubtedly a military victory — though the political consequences of that victory are not as unambiguously clear as some would suggest at present — but now is their opportunity, in the wake of this victory to open negotiations for a political as opposed to a military solution to the problem of the Palestinian people.

I would strongly urge the Israeli Government to take the initiative in the diplomatic and political spheres to set this process in motion. They can best initiate this process by calling a lasting ceasefire, stating their willingness to withdraw their troops and to accept the right of the UNIFIL force to maintain peace in Lebanon. A timetable for talks should be drawn up, under the auspices of the United Nations, to attempt a final political settlement which will give security to Israel and acknowledge the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people.

Reference has been made to the scale of this war and the extent of the slaughter in a country with a population of a mere three million. As verified by the Red Cross, there have been upwards of 14,000 casualties dead and injured and 600,000 people rendered homeless, in a war lasting in all something over ten days. Our Ambassador at the United Nations, Mr. Noel Dorr, was right to point out the gross disproportion between the number of lives lost in attacks on Israel from the PLO in recent years and any terrorist groups there — attacks on Israeli citizens within Israel itself or Israeli citizens abroad — and the number of lives lost in this invasion. Remember that the ostensible reason for the invasion was to prevent such terrorist attacks. But there is — and our Ambassador, Mr. Noel Dorr, was right to point it out — the gross disproportion in lives lost under both headings. He was right also to warn against the continued spiral of violence in the Middle East. He was right to say that each new effort by either side to exact revenge and retribution for a previous attack gives the spiral of violence another upward twist and takes us further and further from any hope of any comprehensive peace settlement in the region. The continued upward twist of the spiral of violence in the Middle East, it must be accepted, offers no hope to Israeli or Arab. The potential for escalation into larger conflict inheres in any local war in the nuclear age but descent into the nuclear abyss can be particularly swift in any Middle East conflict.

It is not our purpose here to suggest tentative global peace solutions for a conflict that has been proceeding for some years now and has defied all previous settlement proposals. That is beyond the scope of this short discussion here. However, it must be our aim in these exchanges to point a way forward. I maintain that the path forward lies through the United Nations taking steps along the lines I have suggested here.

Our country's voice is a small one in international affairs. However, my hope would be that that voice will continue to be heard and will be recognised as one of sanity pointing in the direction of the achievement of a durable peace in this area. Though our country's voice may be a small one, though this conflict may be taking place a long distance from our shores, the fact that this war is taking place in that region, with the super powers in near attendance, has very grave implications for all countries, for the peace of the world, for countries large or small.

Mr. De Rossa

Three decades ago Palestine as a country was removed from the political map when her people were driven into exile by a terrorist campaign. One year later Israel was admitted to the United Nations on condition that the right of the Palestinian people to return to their home would be respected and adequate compensation paid for the loss of their land and property seized by the Zionists.

Over 30 years later none of these conditions has been met or none of those rights conceded by the Israeli Government. Instead, Israel has relentlessly pursued the Palestinian people, hounding them from refugee camps in Jordan attacking them in refugee camps in the Lebanon in 1978 and 1980. The latest invasion of Lebanon must be seen for what it is: a merciless and systematic attempt by the Israeli Government to wipe out the Palestinian people. The Israeli Government have attempted to justify the present holocaust by claiming that it is a purification process aimed at mopping up Palestinian military resistance. However, the figures speak for themselves. There are various estimates of civilian casulaties in the last week, ranging from 14,000 to 25,000 killed and wounded. Another 600,000 people have been rendered homeless, while UNIFIL personnel have been denied the right to offer emergency aid to the wounded and dispossessed. According to Israeli sources their own casualty figures consist of 107 killed, 840 wounded and 18 missing or captured. These figures reveal the Israeli operations in Lebanon for what they are: a genocidal attack on the Palestinian and Lebanese people. Contary to the image projected by some elements in the media, the Palestine Liberation Organisation is not a terrorist organisation but the internationally recognised Government of the Palestinian people. They carry out all the functions of a government, including the running of schools and the provision of health and social welfare facilities. It is these institutions which are now under attack. How many children did the Israelis kill in the past week? On the other hand, the Israelis have repeatedly violated and treated with contempt the efforts of the international community to achieve a just and honourable settlement in the Middle East.

The record of the United Nations with regard to Israel renders eloquent testimony to the contempt of Israel for the United Nations and world standards of civilization. In 1948 the Security Council of the United Nations called on Israel to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and provide compensation to them. In 1949 Israel was admitted to the United Nations on condition that it did so, but the Security Council Resolution was ignored. In 1967, following the occupation of additional territories during the Six Day War by Israel, the Security Council again called on Israel to withdraw to their own boundaries and recognise the territorial integrity of their neighbours. Again the Security Council was ignored by Israel. In 1973 a further Resolution, No. 338, was passed by the Security Council, with joint sponsorship by the United States and the Soviet Union, only to receive similar treatment from the Israeli Government. In 1974 the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution No. 3236 recognising the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignity. In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly again expressed its support for the rights of the Palestinian people when it denounced Zionism as a form of racism under Resolution No. 3379. In March 1980 the United Nations Security Council again had to condemn the failure of the Israeli Government for not only ignoring United Nations mandates but for refusing co-operation with a Security Council Commission set up to implement United Nations policy. In May 1980 the United Nations General Assembly actually had to pass a resolution condemning Israel as a non-peace-loving State. That is a judgment amply and tragically vindicated in the past few days.

Let no one talk of Israel's right to wage war in the Middle East or justify its shameful international record. The time has come for our Government to unequivocally state our opposition to Israel's war aims. Indeed, some of the objectives are as yet secret and can only be guessed at. The Government must immediately take steps to exercise influence in both the United Nations Security Council and the EEC to isolate Israel diplomatically and economically. The Government must also urge the United States to cease its massive support for Israel's military machine, currently estimated at 6½ million dollars a day. It is clear that the current invasion of Lebanon can only take place under sufferance from the White House.

A further measure the Government must consider actively, if Israel continues with her policy in the Lebanon, is the imposition of unilateral sanctions. I call on the Government to make a declaration committing themselves to such a policy now. Finally, the Government should commit themselves to supporting the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations if she does not abide by the Security Council resolutions calling for a withdrawal and agree to behave as a civilised member of the international community.

I would like to pay a tribute to the work of UNIFIL, and the Irish contingent in particular, in the present situation. The UNIFIL troops need more than moral support. The Irish Government must actively pursue a policy at the UN of seeking stronger powers and more resources for the UNIFIL command. This can best be done by upgrading of the UNIFIL role in Lebanon from that of a peace-keeping force to a peace enforcement role. Such a decision would prevent a repetition of the barbaric violation of Article 4 of the Geneva Covention by the Israeli military forces early this week when they refused to allow UNIFIL personnel to give medical treatment to civilian casualties. The time for moral sanctions is over. Israel today poses too great a threat to peace not only in the Middle East but throughout the world to be handled with kid gloves.

Mr. Kemmy

Many people have been unhappy at the conduct of our country's foreign affairs in recent times. We have seen in recent weeks our country attempting to take up the white man's burden, if we are to judge from some of the extravagant posturing that has been going on at the United Nations and in the EEC, something far out of proportion to our size and to our influence. Certainly we have a voice in world affairs and we have a moral background to speak from, but some of the extravagant posturing that has been going on in the United Nations and in Brussels has no place at all in reality in the modern world. There has been a tinkering with very sensitive, very vital areas of life. We have seen the undermining of our Diplomatic Corps and our Foreign Affairs Department — people who are trained diplomats, who know well what they are saying and how to advise Governments what to do. Instead we have a cavalier, extravagant attitude taking place which is no help at all to us. We have had an example of this in relation to the Falkland Islands. We have considerable egg on our face as a result of our mistaken policy there. It did not achieve anything whatsoever but built up a great deal of hostility to us in Great Britain and in other countries.

You must judge the reality of your policy in relation to the benefits you can derive from it for your people. That is not the sole criterion but it is one of the criteria. The Government's attitude in recent times has been lopsided. We have gone totally overboard and we have not interpreted our neutral and independent role in the way it should be. We are talking about a very difficult situation in the Middle East. It is a difficult, sensitive question. We should remember when talking about it that there are three foreign armies there — the Israeli Army, the Syrian Army and the PLO. As a result of this invasion the whole of Lebanon has been turned into a big battleground at the present time. This has completely undermined the independence of the Lebanon as an independent state.

Of course Lebanon has a right to exist and nobody denies that. We must say, loudly and clearly, that Lebanon has the right to exist as an independent state. The UN and the EEC must support our drive as far as possible. We must support the right of all states in every part of the world, including the state of Israel. Some attacks have been made today by the Workers' Party spokesman. I believe he is showing an imbalance in his attitude to it.

The Palestinian people have been chucked around like shuttlecocks. They are not shuttlecocks; they are people and they have the same rights as anybody else. We must say that loudly and clearly as well. Their treatment has been cruel. They have a right to survive and we must support that as well. I am no Zionist and I am no supporter of Mr. Begin. He is a right-wing conservative, even hawkish, politician. I do not support him or his party and certain sections of that country. You cannot rewrite the history of that country — those people have been there for 400 years — nor can you rewrite the history of the last 35 years. The Israeli people have survived in their state for the past 35 years and we must support their right to exist. We must be fundamental in our attitude to the whole question and the right of the Israeli people to exist. All parties must support that right and must say, loudly and clearly, that we support that right.

I disagree with the Israeli policies because I am a socialist. They have not been socialist in their attitudes, nor democratic in some ways. But that does not in any way take from their right to exist as a people, the same as we have a right to exist as Irish people. You cannot gloss over that fact, which should come across loud and clear. There are two different things here, the conduct of their internal policy and the conduct of their international policy. I totally disagree with the latter. However, the fundamental right of the Israeli people to exist as a people should be accented in this Parliament today.

A number of Irish soldiers have been lost. Mr. Haddad has been referred to as the big bad wolf. There has been some killing done in that area, and I do not support him either. He has nothing to offer, but he certainly has been used as a front man. I read a report from a journalist in one of our newspapers that two of our soldiers were tortured, kidnapped and taken away. I do not know what has happened to Private Joyce from the Aran Islands, or his whereabouts. We hope he has not been killed; but, if he has, the people responsible should have the decency to return his body to this country and to his family in the Aran Islands. It is a very savage thing to kidnap and abduct a soldier, a member of a peace-keeping army, doing his best to preserve peace and democracy in that part of the world. I make an appeal from this Parliament to the people responsible to take heed of our words and send back his body if he has been killed. It has caused great distress and misery to his people and to the country.

I want our neutrality and independence interpreted as it should be, not having our Government on one side, as we have seen recently. Let us return to taking advice and recommendations from people who are trained diplomats, our Diplomatic Corps and our Department of Foreign Affairs. We have people there who have long experience in diplomacy and the conduct of international affairs. We can learn from them. We must all be advised, I am against any attempt to undermine them. This buccaneer, cavalier attitude we have seen recently has no place at all in Irish society. It has done us a lot of harm and can do us a lot of harm in the future. Let us attempt at all times to adopt a neutral, diplomatic and evenhanded attitude to Lebanon and to the whole question of the Middle East.

Mr. Gregory-Independent

I would also like to join with the previous speakers in condemning Israeli aggression in Lebanon and in calling on Israel to withdraw its forces completely from Lebanon, so that, as the Taoiseach said in his statement, the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon can be preserved. Reference has already been made to the casualty figures in the last ten days. They have shown the full horror of what has taken place. Many thousands of civilians have been killed and many more seriously injured. Nothing can justify such a terrible toll in the short space of time involved. It cannot and should not be classed as a military victory or act. It is nothing more than an act of genocide.

Reference has been made to the right of the state of Israel to exist and the implication could be that, in order for them to do so, such genocidal acts as have taken place over the last two weeks are justified. I hope and trust that that was not the implication which the speaker intended. When was the Israeli state under threat? Israel has had for many years overwhelming military superiority in that part of the Middle East and their existence is not in question. The Israeli Government have condemned again and again what they call international terrorism, yet can the Israeli action of aggression against a sovereign state be described as anything other than terrorism on a mass scale? Surely its only result will be to generate counter-terrorism and a further spiral of violence on an international level? It is ironic that the Israelis, who themselves have suffered a genocidal war, should now be spearheading what is a genocidal war against the Palestinian people.

It is clear that UNIFIL faced an impossible task with the overwhelming superior force of the Israelis. However, it would be wrong to suggest that UNIFIL no longer has a role to play in the Lebanon. I believe it has a very important place there and now, more than ever before, the role of UNIFIL should be importantly directed to that of observer, particularly in Beirut. It should ensure that the further extermination, which is clearly the intention of the Israeli Government, does not continue. I also reiterate previous statements that the only long-term solution to the problems in the Middle East is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with the PLO playing a full part representing the Palestinian people in the negotiations which must take place to create that state. Any part that the Irish Government can play in bringing about those negotiations must be welcomed and supported by all sections of this House.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Collins)

The Taoiseach, in his opening statement in this debate, has dealt with the immediate situation arising from the invasion of Lebanon by Israeli forces, particularly as regards the position of UNIFIL. In my remarks, I propose to deal with some of the more general issues arising from the Israeli action. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel is but the latest in a series of wars that have taken place in the Middle East since the state of Israel was established. One might have hoped that after the bloody conflicts of November 1956, June 1967, October 1973 and again in Lebanon in 1978, lessons had been learned. But no. It seems that that area of the world is destined to be plagued by an unending war with only occasional intervals of peace — if the no peace, no war situation that exists in these intervals can be described as peace.

It is no secret to say that this present conflict has been imminent for some time. It has been clear for several months that Israel has been planning the present invasion and was dissuaded from launching it up to last week only by pressure from the United States and also from the European Community. With our partners in the Ten we have urged Israel not to inflame the situation in the Middle East even further by attacking Lebanon and thus making a peaceful settlement of the problem even less likely. We very much regret that Israel has not accepted this view.

Israel has justified its invasion by reference to the terrorist attacks which have been made on Israeli citizens, most recently the murderous attack on the Israeli Ambassador to the UK and Ireland, Mr. Shlomo Argov. We condemn without any reservation such attacks. And, in particular, I condemn the attack on Ambassador Argov, whom I had met for the first time since I took up this office just a week before he was shot. I have expressed my sympathy and that of the Government to the Foreign Minister of Israel and to Mrs. Argov.

But, having said this, I would emphasise that we see no justification for the massive retaliation which Israel has inflicted on Lebanon. Israeli reaction has been out of all proportion to the injuries which have been inflicted on her. We are reading of estimates of up to 10,000 people killed in the last week as a result of the Israeli military action, not to speak of the many other injured and perhaps as many as a quarter of a million people left homeless, the vast majority of these people innocent civilians.

It is important to realise that until the Israeli invasion began a cease-fire was in operation which had been agreed between Israel and the Palestinians as a result of US and UN mediation efforts in July 1981 and in which the commander of UNIFIL, General Callaghan, played an important part. This cease-fire had been effective. No significant incidents occurred across the Israel-Lebanon border in that period. No Israeli civilians had been killed on the northern front since July. Admittedly, there has been some dispute about the interpretation of the agreement, with Israel claiming that it extended to all activities against her, while the Palestinians considered that it applied only in relation to the Israel/Lebanon border.

However, even taking this into account, the number of incidents that have occurred, which include some acts of terrorism in the occupied West Bank of Jordan over which the Palestinians in Lebanon may have had little control, cannot be regarded as justification for the Israeli action. In addition, there is good reason to believe that the acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens which have occurred outside Israel were committed by extremists who have no connection with, and indeed are hostile to, the policy of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. In the case of the attempted assassination of the Israeli Ambassador, it should be noted that the PLO disclaimed responsibility for this attack and there are indications now that it was the work of a splinter group.

The Taoiseach has already referred to the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Community on 9 June and to the statement which was issued following that meeting condemning the Israeli invasion and calling for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Lebanon, and to the demarche which has been made to Israel by the Belgian Presidency on behalf of the Community. But condemnation is not sufficient. These latest actions simply reinforce the point that Irish Governments have been making consistently over the last number of years. This is that there can never be any solution to the Middle East conflict by military means. Israel, through its highly trained and immensely powerful armed forces, may have achieved another military victory in Lebanon. But, surely it is the lesson of all its past military victories that these do not secure the peace which it so desires. The odds — numerical, demographic and others — are stacked highly against the success of reliance on military might in the longer run. Perhaps, as the Israeli Government say, the PLO has been smashed. But who can doubt but that the resentment, the hatred and the suffering resulting from the present conflict will within a matter of a year or two result in a revitalised PLO — and perhaps a PLO more committed to military force than its present leaders.

Military force will not provide a solution to the Middle East conflict. The latest tragedy must provide the impetus for a renewal of efforts to bring about a comprehensive peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem by negotiations involving all the parties.

The Irish Government believe that such a settlement must be based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, applied in all their parts, and also on the principles set out in the Venice Declaration of the European Community of June 1980, which have already been referred to by the Taoiseach. It is worth recording again these principles They are:

(1) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;

(2) the need for Israel to end the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967;

(3) respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every state in the area, including Israel, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries;

(4) recognition that in the establishment of a just and lasting peace account must be taken of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

The Irish Government's policy is firmly based on these principles. While having our doubts about the prospects of success for the autonomy talks under the Camp David Accords which were negotiated between Israel, Egypt and the United States, we have welcomed the fact that a peace treaty has been signed between Israel and Egypt and that Israel has withdrawn from all Egyptian territory.

But it is evident from the most recent conflict that any solution which does not give full weight to the position of the Palestinian people has little prospect of success. A solution to the problem of the Palestinian people must be at the heart of any comprehensive settlement. Many of these people, who were displaced from their homes during the period when the state of Israel was being established and in conflicts since then, have now lived for more than 30 years in refugee camps with all that entails. The legacy is one of bitterness and hatred towards those whom they see as responsible for their condition. A comprehensive settlement must, therefore, include the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people. In the Irish Government's view this right includes that to an independent state, if the Palestinian people wish it, and all the evidence is that they do.

In negotiations for such a comprehensive settlement all parties must participate, and this includes the Palestinians. While there is no way at present of accurately ascertaining from the Palestinian people who should represent them in such negotiations, it is clear from all the evidence in the area that the Palestine Liberation Organisation has substantial support both in the Palestinian diaspora and among Palestinians in the occupied territory of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. In elections held for important administrative positions in 1976 those elected expressed support for the PLO. The PLO is also accepted by the Arab states as the sole legitimate spokesman of the Palestinians.

We cannot yet say that the PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian people as we have frequently been pressed to do. But we can say, and we do accept, that the PLO is representative of the views of a large proportion of the Palestinian people. Accordingly, we recognise the role of the PLO in representing the Palestinian people, and we consider that the PLO must participate in the negotiations for an overall settlement of the Middle East conflict.

The situation in the Middle East is critical. Urgent action is required to lower tension in the area. We welcome the fact that a cease-fire has been agreed between Syria and Israel and we urgently hope that this will be extended to a cease fire between Israel and the PLO. Such a cease-fire must be complete and apply equally to areas in the Lebanon now under Israeli control. But the present cease-fire cannot endure as long as Israel remains in occupation of part of Lebanon. Pressure must be brought to bear on Israel to withdraw its forces immediately from Lebanese territory and we urge those with most influence on Israel, and particularly the Government of the United States, to exercise its influence to bring about a withdrawal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must ask the permission of the House to give the Minister about another minute to conclude.

Deputies

Agreed.

Mr. G. Collins

The Taoiseach has already dealt with the situation of UNIFIL. I would, however, take this opportunity to say that Ireland has consistently supported the development of UN peacekeeping as a means by which the international community can help maintain peace and security. Participation by Ireland in UNIFIL has been a concrete expression of this support.

The question whether in view of the recent invasion of Lebanon by Israel there is any longer a role for a peace-keeping force whose authority has been so flouted is one which is under continuous discussion between Ireland and the other troop contributing countries and the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Security Council, of which Ireland is a member, has to decide before 19 June whether to renew the mandate of UNIFIL and on what terms. Ireland supports the view that UNIFIL should remain in Lebanon as long as it has a peacekeeping role to play. In the present very difficult and uncertain climate in Lebanon it is not yet possible to state whether and for how long the mandate of UNIFIL will be renewed.

Mr. Cooney

It must be clear at this stage that, if the views that have been expressed so far in this House are held outside the borders of this country, Israel has now gone too far and has finally forfeited all the goodwill which the western world has had towards that country — inspired, I think, by feelings of guilt for the centuries of persecution which the Jewish people have had to endure in the western world and culminating in the Nazi atrocities from 1939 to 1945. That goodwill, however inspired, whether out of a sense of recognition of injustice or out of a feeling of guilt, was real. It was so strong that it tolerated the dispossession by the Israelis of the Palestinians from their homeland, a dispossession that was carried out ruthlessly and mercilessly and well nigh totally. It also was carried out with atrocities. We have only to think of the awful atrocity committed in Deir Yassin by the Irgun. Perhaps it is no harm, in order to give us a proper perspective on the present actions of Israel, to recall that one of the leaders of that ruthless terrorist organisation was the present Prime Minister of Israel. Many authorities would blame him with responsibility for that awful massacre. The fund of goodwill, whether inspired by guilt or otherwise, was such that the world tolerated the removal of the Palestinians from their homeland. It is no harm to recall why these people are now dispossessed, why we now have refugees, why they were removed from their homeland and kicked out.

The world tolerated that at the time and has tended to look the other way ever since at the actions of Israel. That sympathy which existed carried with it this tolerance for a number of decades past. But, as I say, Israel has now gone too far. The international community, no more than a national community, can only continue to exist if it lives by the rule of law. Clearly, Israel is not prepared to abide by the rules of law. Deputy De Rossa recited here the countless UN resolutions that have been passed in the past two or three decades all of which have been contemptuously ignored by Israel.

If it suited Israel to break the international rule of law to achieve its ends, it did so without compunction. Its territorial aggression against its neighbours, without warning, ruthlessly and totally, is well documented as fact in the world's history. We have seen Israel's ignoring of the international rule of law, as represented by the presence of troops in Lebanon on behalf of the UN, and we have seen that the attitude to those troops has not been merely one of contempt but of covert aggression through Major Haddad. We in this country especially have reason to regret that attitude because compatriots of ours have been murdered as a consequence.

Might I refer to a report in one of this morning's newspapers in which an "investigative" reporter from the US alleges that the two Irish troops were mutilated prior to being killed. I understand from our Defence Forces that the bodies of the two men were not mutilated and I wish to put that on the record in the hope that it will ease the distress of the relatives concerned on seeing that fallacious reporting.

It is clear that moral sanctions and appeals to observe international law have fallen on deaf ears so far as Israel is concerned. There is nothing to suggest that such appeals will be listened to in the future. I think they will be treated with the cynicism with which they have been treated in the past, the type of cynicism that Israel in its propaganda has shown in a release from its embassy in London and in the course of which it says that Israel's airforce was instructed to carry out air raids against Palestinian military targets in Lebanon. It goes on to say — and the cynical dishonesty of this is horrifying — that in those air raids civilians were apparently killed.

That is the type of thinking that informs Israel's attitude to the rest of the world and to the UN. It is clear that the only principle which is honoured or observed or heeded by Israel is the principle that might is right. Israel has flouted international law time and again and all protests at its behaviour have been ignored. Might is right when the right involved is Israel. What we must do is to consider how Israel can be taught that might is not right and, with a national body just as with an individual criminal within society, sanctions may have to be considered.

There have been suggestions during this debate that there should be further UN approaches towards the problem, but I consider that suggestion to be futile having regard to the lack of success in the past through the UN forum. Israel is and always has been a client state of the US. It appears that the US, which largely holds Israel's purse strings, can exert the type of pressure that the whole world wants put on Israel, that is, that Israel live according to the rules of international law.

So far as we can, we should use our influence with the US so that that country in turn can exert pressure on Israel to live in peace with its neighbours and to recognise that the Palestinians, who have been dispossessed of their homeland, must be given a home once again. Again, we must use our voice within the EEC to ensure that that powerful voice will be used in the same direction. It is only when Israel is shown by its master, the US, and by its trading partners in the EEC that no longer is the world prepared to tolerate the type of aggression in which Israel has indulged in the last ten days, that peace can come to the Middle East.

Mr. B. Desmond

There is a particularly dangerous overtone running through the contributions of two speakers in this debate so far. This is an overtone of a type that I have not heard before here since becoming a Member of the House in 1969, an overtone which has never been pronounced in this House except perhaps by the odd abberation in the forties on the part of some individual members, abberations which the people concerned have since retracted and regretted. I refer to the overtone that has been articulated particularly by Deputy De Rossa, that is, the denial of the right of the people of Israel to self-determination, to have a State and a homeland which they can call their own and in which they can live in peace with their neighbours. I am appalled that Deputy De Rossa should come here and give us what must be The Workers' Party's foreign policy. This seems to be their foreign policy, too, in relation to Poland, their identical view of the Soviet Union in relation to the invasion of Poland.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please address the Chair? That would be less provocative.

Mr. De Rossa

Deputy Desmond cannot see anybody in this House but The Workers' Party.

Mr. B. Desmond

The analogy is entirely appropriate. I do not accept that kind of foreign policy, whether it be in relation to Poland or to Israel or to the anti-Jewish feeling to which expression has been given today. As Irish people, we must be very clear in regard to our reaction to events in that tragic part of the world. That is why I am disgusted and appalled that such overtones should emanate within this House, within the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland. I have something to say, too, in this regard to Deputy Cooney. I do not believe, that, to quote his words, Israel has finally forfeited whatever it is the Deputy considers it to have forfeited. What have they forfeited?

I reject the foreign policy of the Prime Minister of Israel, a man whom I have met in my capacity as an Irish delegate to the Council of Europe. I have told the Israeli Foreign Minister that I reject his foreign policy and I have let my views be known also to my Labour Party counterparts in Israel whom I have met. I have told the leader of that party that I have been very unhappy with the foreign policy as well as with the internal policy they have pursued. However, I never reached the stage of saying: "You have finally forfeited," or "I will deny you the right of existence".

Mr. Cooney

I did not say that.

Mr. B. Desmond

I accept that the Deputy did not say that——

Mr. Cooney

Nor did I imply it.

Mr. B. Desmond

——but I would have thought that the Deputy would not have had any association with the sentiments of Deputy De Rossa when he spoke particularly when the word "sanction" was used on an almost parallel basis. Let us get to the nub of the problem. It is appropriate that the spokespersons from the political parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Deputy Kemmy — I support his balanced contribution — should condemn the invasion of Lebanon by Israeli forces. It is appropriate also that we should utterly condemn the violations of international laws which have occurred, and that we should support the UN resolutions and the resolutions adopted by the Ministers of the Community. It is also necessary that we should condemn the murder committed by Israeli troops who moved in and indiscriminately slaughtered civilians in Lebanon. I oppose that and yet we must maintain a sense of perspective. I am as opposed to that as I was opposed to the terrorism of the PLO and the grievous mistakes made on the part of the Israeli Government and the Prime Minister of that country. I am equally appalled, as were successive leaders of the Labour Party—Deputies Cluskey and O'Leary— at the terrorism being practised by the PLO in pursuit of their political aims, their legitimate right to self-determination and the establishment of their own homeland and State within the confines of that area.

The Taoiseach made a balanced and effective contribution and our stance at the UN by our Ambassador, Noel Dorr, has been appropriate, balanced and effective in that regard. I support the statement of the Taoiseach and that of the Fine Gael spokesman, Deputy Deasy whose statement was strong, well-briefed and relatively balanced. I may not go the whole distance with his views. I support the views expressed by my party colleague and leader, Deputy O'Leary. That has been the stance of the Labour Party for a long time. Our party has an affinity with a political party in Israel through the international socialist movement, a party which understands our position. In saying that I will not accept incipient racialism which came from one section of the House in terms of the statement. That should be pondered on by one Deputy and I do not include Deputy Cooney in that context. I include Deputy De Rossa. I regretted some of the overtones in Deputy Cooney's comments but that has been put right by him.

I urge the Israeli Government and the political parties in that country to draw back from the holocaust which could occur, an interaction of holocausts between the people of that area involving not merely Irish troops. I admire and support the actions of those troops in trying to maintain peace there, more as a peace-keeping force than a military unit. It is appropriate that Members should make that appeal to the Government of Israel, the Defence Minister of that country who has a clear responsibility in this regard, to the Foreign Minister and our colleagues in opposition in that country. They should draw back, have a ceasefire, withdraw their troops and negotiate a settlement as must be done. That can be done with great goodwill and the assistance of the Irish Government whose standing in that area is high. The Government's role and objectivity as enunciated by the Taoiseach with considerable force today can be a help in that regard.

The Taoiseach rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is The Workers' Party offering?

Mr. Quinn

Through the Chair I thought the order of speakers now was for the Labour Party to conclude, followed by Fine Gael and then the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

First The Workers' Party, if they offered. I understood that the order was The Workers' Party, 15 minutes; Labour Party, 15 minutes; Fine Gael, 15 minutes, and then the Taoiseach to reply. That is if The Workers' Party want to offer.

Dr. FitzGerald

We have not reached the concluding speeches yet. The arrangement we entered into was one where we have the opening speeches for 20 minutes, intermediate speakers for 10 minutes and closing speakers of 15 minutes.

The Taoiseach

I do not wish to be argumentative about this but the Order of the House is clear, that there would be a statement from the main Opposition parties of 20 minutes and one other speaker from the Opposition parties——

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

The Taoiseach

That is on the Order of Business for this morning.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is not what I understood in the discussion this morning.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will read out the Order of Business. It is: the Taoiseach and Leaders of the parties in opposition to make statements not exceeding 20 minutes in each case on the situation, to enable statements not exceeding 10 minutes each to be made by another Member of each party and by each of the Independents and to enable the Leader of each party, or his nominee, to make a reply not exceeding 15 minutes in each case. That is what I am saying now.

Dr. FitzGerald

In our case we have had another Member, Deputy Cooney, and I am awaiting in due course for my right of reply. There is no suggestion to the contrary, I hope?

Mr. Markey

Is there a time limit on the debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling on The Workers' Party Member now, if they wish to offer a speaker for 10 minutes.

Mr. B. Desmond

And then the final speakers?

Dr. FitzGerald

Do I take it that Fianna Fáil are not putting in intervening speakers?

The Taoiseach

I was under a misapprehension — I do not think we need have an argument about it — that I would speak, another Member from our side would speak and then I would wind up. I thought that was the way it was to be.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is the winding up in the reverse order now. We will have The Workers' Party, The Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Taoiseach to reply.

The Taoiseach

I am sure I am giving away something but I am perfectly happy about that.

Mr. De Rossa

On a point of clarification, if it is in reverse order do I take it that if The Workers' Party do not take the ten minutes then I will stand to conclude my remarks to be followed by the Labour Party, Fine Gael and then the Taoiseach?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy beside Deputy De Rossa may take the ten minutes if he wishes but the same Deputy may not speak again for ten minutes. There would have to be a second speaker from the party.

Mr. De Rossa

If we do not choose to take ten minutes at this point then, presumably, I must conclude for The Workers' Party now?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, and the Deputy has 15 minutes.

Mr. De Rossa

I do not have much to say except to repeat the need for sanctions in regard to Israel in order to force that Government to adopt a more humanitarian approach to the problems in the Middle East. I offer Deputy Desmond a copy of the speech I made in opening the debate for my party so that he may clear his mind of any ambiguities he may have in regard to our contribution to this debate. I believe he is allowing his bitterness in regard to The Workers' Party to cloud his judgment on this issue.

Mr. B. Desmond

I was present throughout the Deputy's contribution and I heard what he said.

Mr. Quinn

In concluding for the Labour Party I should like to deal with the point of issue that has brought us all into the House this afternoon, the real prospect that arising out of this horrendous conflict in the Middle East there could be, as the world has too readily experienced since 1946, an overspill effect of the war which will directly affect the interests of the people we all represent. There is no disagreement about that. That is the common point of concern and that is why the Government rightly responded to the request for a debate so that international opinion could be made aware of our concern as public representatives about the potential outcome of the conflict on the one hand and our condemnation of the human slaughter and destruction that is going on also. As a country we have always held a consistent view that the only safeguard the world can have — it is a view that small nations by definition have always espoused — is that if we replace the rule of international agencies no matter how deficient, bureaucratic or weak it is from time to time we are reversing back to the principle of might is right and large powerful groups. The history of the world, and that of small nations, is a lesson of peril to all. What any Government that has the honour of holding office here must at all times secure and support is the process of international law and respect for international law. To that extent there is unanimity in the various parties starting with some of the fine speeches that were made when we first entered the UN followed by the distinguished career of the Minister for External Affairs, Frank Aiken, during his time. There is a tradition and we are all agreed on it. Our concern must be to strengthen the international process.

Since the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, and the consequent reinvasion of those islands by the United Kingdom, we have seen an extraordinary decline in respect for international law on one side of the world and, simultaneously, within a portion of the Middle East, we saw an invasion by Israel of a country that had already been invaded and occupied by Syrian forces and the PLO some ten days ago. Perhaps we have ignored, somewhat at our peril, a war that has been going on for approximately two years between Iran and Iraq. As a people we stand to lose in every sense of the word if we do not use our sovereign independence in the halls of the United Nations and the Ten with the professional diplomats to whom Deputy Kemmy referred. We stand to lose if we do not use all that influence and expertise and all of that standing to try to reduce the tensions that have been generated by this conflict. We are not going to try to solve the Middle East and Arab-Israeli conflicts in a three-hour debate in this Chamber a long way from the conflicts. None of us has any pretensions to try to do so. However, different parties have different views on it. Let me state from the Labour Party's policy document the basic principles which we think should govern any settlement.

The Labour Party believe that the following are the basic principles which must be respected if there is to be a peaceful solution in the Middle East: (1) Israel must have the right to exist freely and in peace within secure and internationally accepted borders; (2) the Palestinian people must be accorded the right of self-determination including the right to establish an independent and secure state and the right of the refugees to return there; (3) Israel must desist from the provocative and illegal policy of placing settlements in occupied areas; (4) the peace process should be placed within the ambit of the UN which can provide the most appropriate forum for dialogue and negotiation.

Let me turn in a dispassionate and no way bitter response to the point expressed very clearly and well researched by Deputy De Rossa. Depending on the point in history from which you choose to start you can arrive at a totally different conclusion. If you start just over 30 years ago with the dispossession of the Palestinian people, which is a fact of history, and proceed to construct a point of view from there which, with all due respect to The Workers Party, is the line that has been taken consistently by every Euro-Communist party and by the more moderate section of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, naturally you arrive at the conclusion that the Soviet Union arrived at, which is the expulsion of the embassy from Moscow, the breaking off of diplomatic relations and the logical extension of that. I hope that the House will not consider that a bitter disagreement. It is an intellectual difference of opinion. In this country, which frequently calls itself Christian and often regards itself as Catholic, we have, as Christians in the intellectual sense, an extraordinary responsibility for the holocausts not just of the Second World War but of the intellectual framework which Christianity consciously and logically established over a period of 400 to 500 years which not only allowed such a horrible action of genocide to happen but gave it intellectual and emotional justification. We have benefited in this country from opening the doors to refugees who were driven out of Czarist Russia, refugees because they were — as our people once were — of a particular race and religion. I regret to inform the House that that kind of prejudice and harassment still continues today in a country for which I have great admiration in many of its achievements, the Soviet Union. However, it is to be regretted that, perhaps with the same blind eye to history that, unfortunately, Deputy De Rossa's party have indicated, they in the Soviet Union continue the same degree of harassment and persecution of the Jewish people with even more thoroughness than their Czarist predecessors. In particular western Europe can never absolve itself of the responsibility for what happened over the last 40 to 50 years and we can never get to the stage of saying — perhaps inadvertently and I will give Deputy Cooney the benefit of the doubt — that somehow or other the State of Israel has forfeited our tolerance. What kind of importance are we giving to ourselves to say to anybody that you as a human being or a race have now forfeited your right to exist?

Mr. Cooney

That is not what I said, nor did I imply it.

Mr. Quinn

I said perhaps mistakenly or inadvertently, but one could put that interpretation on the Deputy's point of view.

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputy Quinn should be careful.

Mr. Quinn

I am glad that the Deputy is withdrawing it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Quinn

I am delighted that the Deputy has clarified it because I sat here and listened and said to myself that that could be the interpretation. I was surprised, and I am delighted that it has been changed.

There are major obstacles to a solution in the Middle East, let there be no doubt about that. If we do not positively and constructively try to resolve them they will cause great human hardship in that unfortunate part of the world and will also — because we should in any foreign policy recognise our own self-interest — cause us severe damage of every kind. The aftermath of the 1973 economic war is something that we are still living with and nobody in this House should be unaware of just how important this conflict is to the economic survival of all of the people on this island. Therefore, we are not talking about a far off place. We are talking about something which is integral to the survival and prosperity of our people.

We turn to the Palestinians. The Irish Government, and Fianna Fáil in particular, have played footsie with the Arab world, footsie which became a bit of a tango after the price of oil and the newfound wealth of the Arab world became a great attraction to businessmen in this country. The PLO in their covenant have an article which has as its declared objective the elimination of the State of Israel and they have consistently refused to modify it. Yasser Arafat in private consultations, now that the PLO are trying to take on a respectable face, has said that when they get to the bargaining table they will somehow withdraw that article, but not before that time. We cannot in any way support that and the Irish Government should certainly press for the removal of such a section in the PLO covenant. To that extent I welcome the carefully balanced position adopted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the formula the Government have accepted whereby they choose to recognise the role of the PLO without giving them the kind of status they want.

I have no love for the administration which runs this country at present but that does not mean I do not recognise the right of Ireland to exist or do not support fully the aspirations of Ireland. Certainly I have no great love for the similarly conservative régime in Israel, but let us not confuse the occupancy of the office of Government with the nature of the State itself.

There has been some suggestion that Israel is an imperialist genocidal country which wants to create an enormous Israeli empire based on the charter received in the Old Testament. I would draw the attention of the House to an event which was shown on television screens not very long ago when Israeli troops forcibly removed fundamentalist Zionist settlers who refused to get out of that part of the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had agreed to cede back to Egypt, together with their oil fields. As a result of the Camp David agreement Israel has ceded more territory than many of her own people would consider militarily wise. Deputy Cooney referred to the financial dependency of Israel and the oil fields would certainly have been a major component of economic independence.

If we want evidence to refute the claim that Israel is somehow or other an imperialist power with ambitions of territorial expansion, let us look at what has happened in relation to the accord between Cairo and Tel Aviv. Israel achieved such an accord with a country with whom it had on several occasions gone to war. Whatever about the rhetoric and propaganda of the PLO, the people who did the real fighting were the Egyptians, who nearly won the last war. The major fighting was not done by the Syrians and certainly not by the PLO. In spite of the military threat from Egypt, Israel has moved back and ceded much territory in the belief that it had now achieved a working accord with the people and the rulers of Egypt. The ability of former enemies to live and work together is nowhere more evident than in the now Egyptian-owned Sinai Peninsula.

I thank the Government for making time available for this debate and I urge them to continue to support fully respect for international law and to pursue a balanced approach to the Middle East.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is right that we should recall the persecution of the Jews over the centuries, culminating in the events of the last war, a persecution and an act of genocide which has no parallel in Arab countries, where anti-Semitism in the form in which it existed in Europe did not exist. The terrible irony is that a country founded to provide a home for refugees from this genocide should itself be so insensitive to the claim by right to exist on the part of the Palestinians and should themselves have been willing to engage, as has been mentioned in this House, in massacres of Palestinians in the past and be willing now to engage in aggression and in activities which are beginning to appear themselves to verge on genocide.

We must recognise the reasons for the Israeli attitude, the siege mentality of a people who have established a Jewish state in the midst of Arab lands. They have the right to protect themselves against attack, although the point has been made that no attack involving fatalities has occurred on them from PLO forces in the Lebanon since last July. The right of self-defence, the right to protect one's own existence, the right to security do not permit disproportionate actions and the present Israeli actions are grossly out of balance with any action they are designed to redress. What is now going on is sickening and intolerable. It is not a limited action to protect Israeli territory from occasional Palestinian attacks from Palestinian bases. It has gone far beyond the stated objectives of the Israeli leaders. Perhaps I should say "mis-stated" objectives because one must wonder whether the statement of objectives originally made was not deliberately designed to deceive.

It is increasingly clear that the Israelis are seeking not just the destruction of the PLO in the Lebanon but the subduing of the Palestinians in Lebanon and the killing of thousands of Palestinians. What is happening is increasingly being described by observers on the spot as genocide and it is increasingly difficult to resist this description. Genocide by a people who themselves have been the object of the most brutal and total act of genocide in history is an appalling irony.

In one of the English Sunday newspapers, The Observer, there was an article by John le Carré which struck me very much because it echoed thoughts which had come into my mind in the preceding days. He stated:

The attack was a monstrosity, launched on speciously assembled grounds, against a people who on the Israelis' own admission constitute no serious military threat. It is as if we British had lost our temper with the IRA and decided to punish the entire Irish people once and for all — convincing ourselves at the same time that when we had done so, we would hear no more of their troubles.

Too many Israelis, in their claustrophobia, have persuaded themselves that every Palestinian man and woman and child is by definition a military target, and that Israel will not be safe until the pack of them are swept away. It is the most savage irony that Begin and his generals cannot see how close they are to inflicting upon another people the disgraceful criteria once inflicted upon themselves. It is worse still that they have so far taken the Americans with them.

Responsibility for these events is indeed widely dispersed. Going back in history, one can see the seeds of it in European anti-Semitism which persisted so long that within our own Church — the Church to which most of us here belong — the words "perfidious Jews" were used every Easter until about 20 years ago.

Coming forward in history, after 1967 the efforts made to persuade Israel through the United States, which has great influence with it, to negotiate a solution from strength were quite inadequate. The countries of Europe, including ourselves, failed to put on the pressure then when it might have had some effect. The US in their policies have been influenced by domestic considerations into failing to persuade Israel where its best interests lie. The United States may also have been influenced, as other western countries were until the mid-seventies but not since, that western interests were linked to Israel and, what is different again, linked to supporting Israeli intransigence against Israel's long-term interest.

It is particularly disturbing that there was such connivance by silence at Israeli acquisition of a nuclear capacity. This appears to have been done — I have made such inquiries as I could on this directly with statesmen in some of the countries concerned — on the basis that Israel was part of the west. There was a total failure to appreciate that such connivance would lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons, as is being attempted in Iraq and Pakistan, and that that proliferation would put world peace at risk.

It is now clear that the failure of western diplomacy has created a danger to world peace that cannot easily be controlled. It may be that at this moment peace outside the Middle East is not immediately threatened. Other Arab countries, perhaps fearful of the Iranian threat, are slow to take any action. Syria seems to be disengaging and the USSR appear to be holding back, all for their own reasons. In so far as this means that world peace may be maintained despite these appalling events, we must be selfishly grateful.

However, any relief on our own account must be matched by a commitment to all possible action to help those who are suffering, hundreds of thousands of innocent suffers by any standards. This action must include insistence, backed by all the powers including the US, on immediate access to the refugees in Tyre and Sidon and other parts of Southern Lebanon with facilities to succour them, and access to Beirut or anywhere else where fighting is continuing to ensure the application of the Geneva Convention, which cannot be ensured at present because there is no means of supervising it. Action required must also include insistence by countries who supply arms to Israel that arms are used for defence purposes only and that failure to adhere to these conditions must entail cessation of arms supply to that country unless and until it evacuates conquered territory and provides adequate assurances that it will never again launch on a war of aggression or react to attacks on its territory by measures so disproportionate as to represent any kind of aggression.

In this situation, as in others where aggression is concerned, neutrality cannot, as Deputy De Rossa said — somewhat selectively in this case in view of what was said in another case of aggression recently — inhibit us from initiating or joining in sanctions should they be likely to be effective in advancing peace. I have grave doubts about the efficacy of sanctions. They had in some cases a demonstration effect. In certain circumstances they could have more than that. Where they can control aggression and advance peace it is the duty of a neutral country concerned with peace to join in them. If that is the case in this instance — it is not clear that it is — neutrality would be as irrelevant as it should be in any other case. I hope Deputy De Rossa's remarks will make it clear how hollow was the talk of neutrality in another instance in this House a few weeks ago.

The message should go from this House that Israel's right to exist and be secure is not challenged and will not be challenged by this or any other people who recall the genocide of the forties. This right does not give Israel the right to bully, attack or destroy its neighbours or to react, other than with due proportion, to attack upon it. We must join with others in using all available pressures to secure an end to the appalling bloodshed in Lebanon.

As to the UNIFIL force, when it was established I expressed some doubts about the wisdom of establishing and maintaining a force without a clear mandate. I sought to have that mandate clarified but I never succeeded in doing so. In the present circumstances, with the mandate due to be renewed on 19 June and uncertainty as to whether there may be a useful role for the force to fulfil, it cannot now be clear what that role will be in the weeks and months ahead. I would be disposed to agree to a renewal of that mandate subject to the matter of how the force is to be used in a new situation being brought before the House the moment when a decision on that matter comes to be taken.

The Taoiseach

I am gratified at the manner in which Deputies participating have availed of the opportunity of this debate to give full expression to their views on the tragic situation obtaining in Lebanon. The debate has been very worthwhile. The Government are very glad to have this wide spectrum of views. The views expressed ranged very comprehensively over the situation and they covered practically every aspect of it. It is useful, helpful and beneficial for the Government to have the benefit of these different views.

Undoubtedly there has been difference of emphasis during the debate, but it is true that there has been general unanimity on the central question, which is condemnation of the Israeli invasion, condemnation of the disproportionate character of the Israeli response to the situation and condemnation of the enormous loss of life and suffering. The view is widely held in the House that there should be an Israeli withdrawal up to the internationally recognised boundaries of Lebanon.

It is not necessary for me by way of reply to deal with the arguments of substance put forward and the various positions and attitudes elaborated on by different Deputies. I shall avail of my time to deal with some facts which have arisen about which some questions were asked during the debate. I will take them as they come because they were mentioned by different Deputies. Deputy Quinn referred to a very important matter and that is the Palestinian Covenant and the fact that that covenant contains the determination to eliminate the State of Israel. Everyone recognises that that is a real problem and is recognised as such in the counsels of the Ten. We avail of every opportunity that presents itself to draw attention to the need to deal with that stumbling block. A number of Deputies spoke about the irony of the present situation, and it is ironic that at present it is the destruction of the Palestinian people and not the State of Israel that is in question.

I assure the House that in a recent interview I had with the American Ambassador on the situation in the Lebanon, I pressed among other things, that the United States should use its very considerable influence to endeavour to secure an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces. Deputy FitzGerald mentioned the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Apart from any other chilling and agonising aspect of this whole matter, we must always keep it in the back of our minds that local outbreaks of hostilities of this sort underline the urgent need there is for something very specific to be done to prevent a further proliferation of nuclear weapons and the need there is now for the original Non-Proliferation Treaty to be updated and made a great deal more specific.

Apart from his general expressed attitude about the Israeli invasion, Deputy Deasy raised three specific points of some significance. By the way, I should like to congratulate him on what I believe was his first contribution here in his capacity as Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs. The first point was the question of the flow of aid and food supplies. The second was the question of self-determination for the Palestinian people. Then he also asked about the stationing of United Nations observers in Lebanon. On the question of food supplies I think what is possible is being done there. The Secretary-General did report on the situation and there is a fairly major effort being undertaken to channel food supplies, aid and medical supplies into Lebanon. I want to assure the House that anything we can do by way of assistance in that regard we shall be very pleased to do. Standard medical kits are being supplied, as is food. I think UNIFIL can and are performing some useful function in regard to that situation.

I am glad Deputy Cooney mentioned the report about the two Irish soldiers who were killed and that he referred to the statement by our Department of Defence today denying that report. I want to confirm that that is the position, that that report is entirely without foundation. The two soldiers concerned, unfortunately, were shot and killed but there was nothing more involved than that. With regard to Private Joyce who is still missing, unfortunately there is no information about him despite exhaustive inquiries which our Embassy in Beirut and the United Nations Commander have made about his whereabouts. I want to tell the House that, as of now, he is not presumed dead. We can only hope that he will eventually turn up safe and sound.

On the question of self-determination for the Palestinians, that was dealt with fairly cogently in the Venice declaration, that was the summit in Venice which issued a fairly important declaration about the Middle East situation. That declaration set out the basic principles of the kind of settlement which the Ten believed should be aimed at in the Middle East. Of course the first principle is the security of all the States in the region. That principle of security of course includes the security of the State of Israel. The second important principle enunciated in that declaration was justice for all the peoples and, of course, that includes the self-determination of the Palestinian people. Since that Venice declaration a great deal of preparatory work has been done as a follow-up on the manner in which these principles might be implemented. Of course any work of that nature must ultimately reach a stalemate as long as the central political issue is not settled. On the one hand that is, of course, recognition by the PLO and others of the right of existence of Israel and its right to secure borders and, on the other hand, the recognition by Israel of the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and to their homeland.

There was another general point raised by Deputy De Rossa and others, that was that we should be using our efforts in the counsels of the Ten and in the United Nations to achieve certain objectives with regard to Israeli policy. I do not think much more can be done in that regard either by the Security Council or by the Ten. Very positive, strong statements have been issued by the Ten which go as far as can be gone and as is necessary at this stage. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, those statements cover the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the need to adhere to the Geneva Convention, the humanitarian aspects of the situation. Anything else that should be covered has been dealt with by the Ten in their two statements. Again, I do not think the Security Council Resolution which was passed unanimously could go any further or be any more specific that it has been. Therefore, in that regard, we have — in co-operation with our partners in the Ten and in the role we discharge at the United Nations — done everything that can be done at this stage.

The question uppermost in all our minds at present is the role of UNIFIL and what should happen next. I think there is also fairly general agreement in the House — and I know that this view is held widely in the United Nations — that whereas UNIFIL are not in a position to exercise their peace-keeping mission fully at present nevertheless they should remain in position because they do represent some element of stability in that situation. I think we would all agree that, for the time being at any rate, UNIFIL should remain in position. Of course we must think a bit ahead and I know this was in the minds of many Deputies from opinions expressed about the future. There is the future of UNIFIL, as it stands at present, and there is also the future of the area now being invaded. I myself would be inclined to believe that one solution which may emerge ultimately is that there will be a greatly expanded United Nations force to occupy the larger area now involved as a peace-keeping mission. I know also that in the United Nations itself the view is very strongly held that such a United Nations peace-keeping force, if it is to be established, would have to be much larger than UNIFIL and would also have to have the complete and total acceptance by all of the parties involved of their role and insertion into the situation.

I do not think there is any point any more in asking a United Nations peace-keeping force to undertake a peace-keeping mission in that area unless there is total and complete acceptance of the force, its role and mission by everybody concerned. But I think — and I feel sure the House would agree with me in this regard — that if that solution does emerge and appears to be an acceptable one, receiving the unanimous acceptance to which I referred, then I have no doubt but that the House would agree that we should play our full part in any such force. Deputies are probably very much concerned with the central issue of UNIFIL, its future and the possibility of a larger force being created. I am sure that perhaps at another level the thing that is possibly uppermost in all our minds is the tragedy that has overtaken the people of Lebanon, all the people of that area, Palestinians and Lebanese.

I had the opportunity of being in New York when the situation was unfolding. The American television was particularly comprehensive in its coverage of the events. Perhaps everybody in the country might not realise the enormity of what has happened in Lebanon, the absolute tragedy and the tragic devastation that has occurred which was very graphically illustrated on American television. When we think that there are 600,000 refugees we must all be appalled and must be determined that, if there is anything we can possibly do to help to alleviate that situation, we will do it. The number killed is one aspect of the situation but the fact that there is such an enormous number of people who are now homeless and destitute is something which must command the attention of the whole world. The Ten are certainly concerned about it and the institutions of the Ten are examining what can be done. It is almost beyond our comprehension when we think in terms of 1,000 refugees or 10,000 refugees but the mind is quite incapable of grasping the concept of 500,000 or 600,000 people homeless, destitute and starving. This is a great human tragedy about which we are talking and I know the House would wish the Government and all agencies who can be of any assistance to do everything possible to alleviate that situation.

I again express my gratitude to the House and to the Deputies for the manner in which they have approached this debate and for the contributions that have been made. The Government have found this debate very informative and very helpful. I undertake, if there are any developments of any importance in the situation there, to keep the House and Deputies fully informed of them. I again emphasise that the Government will endeavour to play any part they can in the peacekeeping side in the future, as they have done in the past, and, in particular, to do everything they can in any area of responsibility available to them to alleviate the great suffering and deprivation that is taking place in Lebanon today.