Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Oct 2000

Vol. 524 No. 4

Adjournment Debate Matters. - Middle East Conflict: Statements.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

The Government is gravely concerned at the crisis in the Middle East. It has already taken an appalling toll of life and put in jeopardy the Middle East peace process in which so many hopes have been placed. It poses a threat to the stability of the whole region. I have extended my deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have been killed and to those were injured.

What has happened in the Palestinian Territories and Israel is truly tragic. Just when the parties were closer to an agreement than they have ever been, the essential basis for peace – trust and confidence – has been seriously undermined. Instead, anger and frustration, stemming from the failure of each side to understand the problems of the other, has boiled over, resulting in the horrors we have witnessed.

Intensive diplomatic efforts have been made to bring the crisis to an end. I pay tribute, in particular, to the efforts which President Clinton and President Mubarak, together with the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and other leaders, have made in recent days to save the peace process. We know from our own experience of building peace in Northern Ireland that there is no other way forward.

The immediate cause of the crisis was the ill-advised and provocative visit by Mr. Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, or Haram-al-Sharif, in the old city of Jerusalem. This site, holy to both Moslems and Jews, is at the heart of the dispute of the future status of Jerusalem, which is one of the most difficult and sensitive issues remaining to be resolved in the peace process. Mr. Sharon's visit gave rise to an outraged reaction by Palestinian demonstrators, which in turn led to an excessive reaction by the Israeli military. Further widespread protests and incidents followed, resulting in countless injuries and over 100 deaths, including many children and the brutal murder of two Israeli soldiers in a police station in Ramallah.

The Government has made clear its position. We deplore all acts of violence. We have called on both sides to exercise the utmost restraint and to do all in their power to avoid further escalation. We have underlined the need for both sides to act quickly to reach agreement in the Middle East peace process and to avert the danger that this conflict might extend further. The objective must remain the achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, which must necessarily recognise both Israel's right to live in peace and security and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

In our own bilateral contacts, within the past two weeks, we have strongly put forward our views. I met recently with the Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Co-operation, Nabil Shaath, here in Dublin, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, met with the Israeli Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Nawaf Massalha, also in Dublin. Yesterday, I met here in Leinster House with Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, a special emissary of Prime Minister Barak, and encouraged him to join with the Palestinians in rebuilding trust and confidence, mutual respect, parity of esteem and a spirit of partnership. I described our own experience in these islands in developing a win-win approach. Stressing the need for maximum restraint, I assured him of our support for all efforts to restore calm and to find a peaceful solution. I also reminded him of the very concrete contribution we have made to peace in the region through our partici pation in UN peace-keeping in Lebanon, where the safety of our troops is of paramount concern.

We have also fully supported the European Union in its on-going efforts to defuse the crisis. The informal European Council meeting in Biarritz last weekend called for an immediate end to all violence and urged all parties to demonstrate political courage and responsibility so that reason and tolerance might prevail over fear, hatred and extremism before the point of no return was reached. The European Union has been active in encouraging the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to come together and work for a ceasefire. President Arafat, President Chirac, Prime Minister Barak and US Secretary of State Albright met in Paris in an effort to find a solution. The EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, participated in the summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt earlier this week.

The meeting at Sharm-el-Sheikh produced a number of agreements on measures to halt the violence. The following major points were agreed. First, both sides are to issue statements unequivocally calling for an end to violence and to take immediate concrete measures to eliminate points of friction. These include withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions they had occupied before the outbreak of disturbances and an end to the closure of Palestinian territories and the reopening of Gaza airport, as well as renewal of security co-operation between the two sides. Second, the United States together with the Israelis and the Palestinians and the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will establish a fact-finding committee to look into the events of the past weeks. Third, the United States will consult with the parties in the next two weeks on how to resume the peace negotiations leading to a permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We appeal to the parties, who have demonstrated their sense of responsibility at this critical moment, to implement these decisions without delay. The two essential aims will be to end the violence and to restore at least a working measure of confidence. This will require openness and transparency on all sides in implementing the measures. Some of these measures are already being put in place. Reports overnight suggest that the first signs of the easing of tension are appearing but fears of renewed violence persist and developments over the next few days will be of crucial importance. The General Assembly of the United Nations has begun debating the crisis. On Saturday, Arab leaders will be meeting in Cairo for their first summit in four years. Their discussions will focus on the crisis and the ways in which a consensus approach can be developed. Later this month, the Israeli Parliament will resume and it too will be focusing its attention on the grave situation now facing the Israeli Government and people.

The first priority, as agreed at Sharm-el-Sheikh, must be to end the violence. This, however, will not be enough; the immediate causes and effects must be addressed. The underlying frustrations and anger have to be removed. If a cessation of violence is to take hold and remain in place, it will be essential to move quickly to rebuild trust and confidence. This will not be an easy task but it is a vital one. In this context, it is important that the investigation of what has happened will be as open, thorough and transparent as possible. We, with our EU partners, have supported a full international investigation. If this investigation is to help restore trust and confidence, it can only do so if it itself enjoys the trust and confidence of all concerned. I see a resumption of the peace negotiations as offering the only path out of the recurring cycle of bloodshed and suffering.

Although the Camp David talks in July made considerable progress, it did not prove possible to overcome some major difficulties. Chief among these were the question of Palestinian refugees and, most intractable of all, the question of sovereignty in Jerusalem. This is the central issue. If it can be solved, everything else is likely to fall into place. At the core of this issue is sovereignty over the Jewish and Moslem holy places. Most difficult of all is the problem of the Islamic Haram-al-Sharif and the Jewish Temple Mount, which share the same site. For both sides, this is more a religious and symbolic matter than a territorial one and both are said to have adopted mutually exclusive positions. What seems clear is that no comprehensive solution is possible unless each side accords the other sovereignty over its own holy places or accepts a form of international sovereignty.

Ireland has long been sympathetic to the unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which includes the option of a state and is not subject to any veto. We would prefer to see this achieved through a negotiated solution. We believe, together with our partners in the European Union, that the establishment of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian state would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and acceptance as an equal partner in the region, an objective we equally support.

Our contribution to this process was reflected earlier this year in the decision of the Government to establish a representative office in Ramallah and to increase our development co-operation activities in the Palestinian territories. Last week the Government allocated $100,000 to the Palestinians as a humanitarian response to the shortage of medical supplies in the West Bank. In parallel, we have sought to encourage the development of relations with Israel, both bilateral and in the framework of the EU, in a way that will also strengthen the basis for lasting peace and stability in the region.

In ten weeks Ireland will take on the responsibilities of membership of the Security Council and we are preparing ourselves for this task. Developments in the Middle East will continue to be one of the issues of major concern and I will be anxious to ensure that, through our diplomatic network and through my contacts, we are in a position to make a constructive and effective contribution. I am currently looking at the possibilities for making an early visit to the Middle East.

I spoke earlier of the tragic nature of the crisis. It is particularly poignant that, in this millennial year which should be a time of celebration and bringing people together, the holy places should have been the scenes of violence and death. Thousands of pilgrims from this country, as well as from many others, have been visiting these holy places. Many of them have been affected by the disturbances, but I am glad to report that all Irish citizens in the region are safe. We have provided information and guidance to those planning to travel as well as providing consular assistance, where necessary, to those already there.

It is a source of particular sadness to me, which I am sure will be shared by all Members of the House, that the land and places which are sacred for the many millions who adhere to three of the world's major religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism – should have witnessed such hatred and violence. I assure the House that we will continue to work together with our partners and friends in Europe, Israel and the Arab world to encourage a return to the only path which leads away from conflict and towards genuine peace, security and justice for all peoples and countries of the Middle East. I will also make every effort to ensure that this House and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs are kept fully informed and notified of the Government's activities to this end.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am glad we are having this debate on a crisis which has huge implications for the Middle East. It also has global implications. I do not take issue with the positions adopted by the Minister and I assure him of our continuing support for his efforts in this area.

There are a number of aspects to the search for a resolution to this problem. The European Union must take a stronger role in the Middle East peace process. The geographic proximity of the area will be brought into sharper focus with the enlargement of the Union into central and eastern Europe and even more so when it extends to the eastern Mediterranean with the accession of Cyprus and, eventually, Turkey. At that stage, Israel and Palestine will be our next door neighbours.

The United States, which has been the power broker in the region, is not accepted by the Arabs as an independent honest broker. The Americans are even more constrained in playing an independent role by domestic political considerations and, at this time, upcoming elections. That point was brought home to me by an e-mail from a west Cork constituent of my colleague, Deputy Creed, which arrived yesterday from Oman. She writes as follows:

As I have previously said, my physical safety is not an issue here although, to be frank, it was an issue a few days ago. The situation in Israel looks as if it is backing away from a full scale war but that means nothing as things will not be resolved. Clinton is leaving the White House. He may be reviled here but the fact remains that he is the President who has done more than any other to broker peace. Gore and Bush have never shown that international diplomacy is their forte or area of interest. Who does that leave as an international mediator? Kofi Annan does not command the same authority.

In that context, I strongly suggest that the European Union takes a larger role in the attempts to broker a settlement of the Middle East crisis.

While the US has been the major financial and political supporter of Israel, the European Union has played its role for both. It has opened its markets to Israeli products, such as fruit, vegetables and flowers, and has made a major contribution to the Israeli economy. At the same time, the EU is the main financial supporter of the Palestinians. In that situation the EU can and should have a major role as an honest broker in the search for a peaceful solution.

The EU peace envoy, Mr. Moratinos, plays a discreet – some would say invisible – role. France and the UK act unilaterally and the result is too many conflicting voices from Europe. I wish to see a higher profile political appointee with the full backing of the European Union taking an active diplomatic role in the search for a Middle East solution. Ireland should take a leading role in pushing that point of view. As a small member state and given our forthcoming role on the UN Security Council, Ireland should continue, bilaterally, to extend the hand of friendship and understanding to both sides.

The spirit of friendship, however, does not and should not restrict us from commenting and criticising where appropriate in a fair and balanced way. In that context, I have no hesitation in condemning the actions of the Israeli opposition leader, Sharon, whose provocative actions on the Temple Mount, for domestic political purposes, were principally responsible for unleashing the violence over the past month. It was a direct affront to the Palestinians, not least because in the ascent to the Temple Mount, Sharon was accompanied by a battalion of soldiers and armed policemen, variously estimated to number between 750 and 2,000. In the interests of balance, it is fair to point out that his action was also a considered affront to the Israeli Prime Minister, Barak, who had previously expended great efforts in furthering the peace process.

The general Israeli reaction to the violence was over the top and, not surprisingly, resulted in more than 100 dead and at least 2,500 wounded Palestinians. Nobody will forget the picture of the 12 year old child cowering for protection from Israeli snipers behind his father before he was killed. The disproportionate reaction by the Israelis was obvious.

The Palestinians are not angels and in some instances the immediate cause of the confrontations was the stone throwing actions of Palestinian youths. On this issue, however, two points should be made. The frustrations of the Palestinians were aggravated by the placing of Israeli tanks and army units in the main Arab towns, blocking movement between towns and cities and resulting in an economic blockade. The Israelis also suffered some casualties, including the horrific murder of the two army reservists in Ramallah so reminiscent of the equally horrific murder of the British soldiers in Milltown cemetery in Belfast some years ago. Again, the disproportionate bombing reaction to the actions of a mob caused Israel in that instance to descend to the level of the mob.

I hope the recent summit will lead to a de-escalation of violence and an atmosphere in which discussions on the peace process can resume. I am convinced that what is necessary is the swift conclusion of a deal that is fair and just to both sides. Clearly, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will go away. What is necessary is a fair compromise to allow them to live peacefully together in the area.

The Palestinians must accept that Prime Minister Barak, genuinely and from a difficult political base, wants a settlement. The Israelis must accept that Chairman Arafat has his own difficulties in the negotiations and that there are behind him people who are waiting hopefully for his demise. Hamas and other extreme fundamentalists understand violence and blood only as the way forward. The Israelis must understand the position of Chairman Arafat. The fundamentalists are actively hostile to the peace process and Ireland knows what is involved in trying to deal with murderous extremists.

The Israelis must get their army out of the Palestinians' faces and away from the flashpoints. They should remove the economic stranglehold on Arab territories. The Palestinians must make every effort to reduce violent confrontation and, in so far as it is physically and politically possible, should re-arrest known terrorists.

An honest analysis and evaluation of the recent violence and deaths would help to lay the groundwork for further negotiations. Whether the present Clinton proposals will provide the answers remains doubtful as the format proposed points to its inherent lack of honest independence and the current American electoral situation hardly provides the best backdrop for an independent approval on their part.

In that situation, I propose the EU should play a much more positive role. Statements of concern and support for the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East are modestly useful. A positive role trying to broker a settlement is the role which I now urge the European Union to undertake. The time is right for such an approach but that time is running out.

Mr. M. Higgins

I am grateful Members have been given an opportunity to make brief statements on this conflict. I referred to this last week, given the events that were taking place. I believe Members on all sides of the House, including the Minister, are impelled by an anxiety that everything they do and say would contribute to bring forward such momentum as might have been established in those talks which might, I hope, lead to a cease-fire. We must bear in mind that it is appropriate for us to discuss this issue. Our experience of conflict, and any fragility that might exist in our advances towards creating a permanent resolution in Northern Ireland, qualifies rather than disqualifies us to have an opinion on this matter.

I agree with the previous speaker that the European Union should play a more active role on this issue. European Union statements of 29 September and 1 and 2 October were unsatisfactory. The EU's first statements were weak in that they failed to come to terms with what the whole world agreed was the use of unacceptable force. We all watched the shooting of a 12 year old boy. I do not have the time in the ten minutes allotted to me to discuss the issuing of three different statements within 24 hours. If this was because insufficient information was available, that is fair enough, but it is also possible to put another construction on it, that is, that another version was being drawn up. This was morally indefensible.

Later, on the same side of the conflict, there was the shooting of an olive gatherer on land of his which was being dispossessed. On the opposite side, the whole world and I were appalled at the near ritualistic killing of two Israeli soldiers by a mob and the disrespect shown not just to life but to the bodies of the victims. I condemn unequivocally and unreservedly this action.

Reflecting on what the Minister and the previous speaker said, it would be a victory for Ariel Sharon if the present conflict continued and people retreated into obdurate positions. It is difficult to believe that the situation would be otherwise. I agree with those who said it is difficult to see how this visit can be justified, how the support and shelter of it can be justified or how it can be construed as anything other than the greatest provocation.

The succeeding interviews by Mr. Sharon after the conflict had reached its most severe point are interesting. He is anxious to press on, temporarily unrewarded by a seat in Government. Given his views on Jerusalem, it is clear that he is unwilling to countenance the slightest compromise. His views are similar on the issue of refugees. On shared sovereignty, his views give no scope for any Palestinian comfort. He is silent on the issues of the occupied territories and conditions of war, to which the United Nations resolutions refer. It seems to me, therefore, that there is very little hope if he prevails.

On the other side, there is a lot of criticism. I am not foolish enough to think there is a single Palestinian opinion. I believe it is dangerous for those who are critical to ask is Chairman Arafat in control, can he deliver and, if he does not deliver immediate peace, he has disqualified himself from negotiations and from the implementation of a future where both peoples might be able to live together. To be fair, great risks have been taken by and within the Israeli Cabinet to bring the peace process to the point where it was before the present tragic breakdown. Great risks have been taken also on the Palestinian side. If there is to be a step forward, it must go beyond the present step of arranging a cease-fire, when more meaningful talks can take place, and a second step, which is to try to recover the moment of the peace talks before the present breakdown. There must be a further step backwards also. They must look at the structural principles on each side. The Palestinian side must be given more to enable it to restore the legitimacy, credibility and influence of Chairman Arafat and the Israelis must be given greater assurance in relation to security if there is to be a withdrawal, as mentioned by other speakers.

I wish both sides success. It is important, if we are to get to that point, that the international body which is being proposed conducts an impartial investigation. This must be seen to be the case. Let us be clear about this, a body chaired by the United States and to which the United Nations and Norway are attached, is very different from a totally independent international investigation, as originally envisaged. It is interesting that this body lacks any European Union contribution, which is a serious aspect. I hope this body will be successful, even in its imperfect composition when looked at from one perspective. I wish it well and hope it bears fruit.

I hope I am not over-simplifying the issue. I have described a certain scenario that will serve as a background to the talks. I listened with great care yesterday to the representative of the Israeli Government who spoke thoughtfully. I accept what he said in terms of the risks that have been taken for peace and how the doves rather than the hawks on that side of the conflict need to be supported. I support this view. Given our experience of Northern Ireland, I would regard it as deeply offensive to say to the parties to that conflict that they should forget everything that happened before the present moment in the peace process. It is very different to say to them that they must leave it aside so that we can move on and live together, but it is insulting to suggest that there be amnesia. When I visited Gaza and other towns many years ago, I was very moved by the fact that children playing in appalling conditions were the third generation in a refugee camp. We cannot ask people to leave aside the issues of refugees. There must be a step back to engage the structural issues that will have to be addressed eventually. These include the issue of refugees, the jurisdiction of Jerusalem and what will happen in relation to guarantees for some and withdrawal of settlers in the post-1967 territories. There is also the issue of sovereignty and the recognition of the inalienable right, supported by the international community, of the Palestinian people to a homeland, a state, and, equally, the right of the State of Israel to security.

We will not help by burying our heads in the sand and saying that because there is a conflict at home we should stay silent. I agree we should be careful but we should also remember that if the international community does not provide assistance in this conflict it could quickly turn into a conflict not just between Israel and Palestine. If there is an imperfect investigation group chaired by the leading power in the world it will be construed as the West versus the rest and within a short time a certain version of the West within geopolitics versus the rest. It would be deeply destabilising in regard to the future of international relations.

That is why the European Union, instead of making statements late in the day and being afraid to stir itself to condemn that which should be condemned, should move to a mode of activism not just by expressing concern at violence but also in examining the structurally necessary principles to establish an enduring peace.

Mr. C. Lenihan

The previous speaker has captured a telling point in regard to the current situation in the Middle East. The lack of any European role could a contributory cause of further tragedy because there is a perception on the Palestine side that the American influence is malign. I do not entirely agree with that sentiment but Palestinians believe the US is not an honest broker and is not involved in a neutral manner in the politics of the Middle East. The more cynical among them might say that the US is only involved because the region has a significant concentration of oil. I do not agree with that cynical theory.

It would be better if there were a greater European influence in this equation. I congratulate the Minister on the firm line he took in identifying the source of the problem. The casus belli was the totally ill-advised and provocative visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount site in east Jerusalem. This was particularly offensive given that Mr. Sharon is identified in the minds of Palestinians with the horrible massacres at Chatila and Sabra in Lebanon which had deeper consequences than the events of the past few weeks with more than 150 killed.

The situation is tragic and it teaches everyone in Ireland to be careful in regard to our peace process. Sometimes a peace process can go horribly wrong. The Oslo Accord was the most public peace process. It was announced on the lawn of the White House to great public acclaim. Two figures were on the lawn but one, sadly for all concerned, was tragically assassinated. Mr. Arafat is in a weakened position. There is no doubt there are hotheads on his side who are impatient with his style of leadership and would prefer if he were not in charge, preferring protest and escalating violence. No form of violence is of assistance in this tinderbox in the Middle East.

The Minister correctly remarked that the violence serves nobody in this equation. Hopefully it will end and Mr. Arafat will be able to control the hotheads and prevent them from breaching a ceasefire and both Israelis and Palestinians will respect the right to life. The death toll is horrendous and it has been a horrible episode. It is hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. One hopes wiser heads will prevail but I have visited the region on many occasions over many years and unfortunately the sight of the resettlement policy is terrible. The policy is aggressive and wrong and rubs the noses of the Palestinians in it.

They believe their land has been occupied since 1967 and settlements were aggressively sited around their territory. That has continued unabated since Mr. Barak took over. Some Palestinians are even saying they might have been better off with Netanyahu, which is odd. Most level headed international observers believed that Barak's appointment was liberal and there would be a definitive improvement. However, the resettlement policy has continued in an aggressive manner. Mr. Barak was aware of Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount site and took no action to prevent it. That was an historic mistake on his part, which hopefully can be rectified with the resumption of talks.

Mr. Shatter

I largely agree with the thoughtful and careful contribution of the Minister. In the context of the difficulties in the Middle East and the tragedy of what has happened over the past three weeks we are aware in making comment of the difficulty in forging a peace process and that frequently as one feels one is making progress there are unexpected setbacks. It can then be extremely difficult to get the process back on track.

The Minister correctly highlighted that for a peace process to work people who have been in conflict for many years, or generations in some instances, must have the capacity not only to start a peace process but to reach final agreement and implementation and as they move through the framework process there is a need to build and maintain trust and confidence. During the trials and tribulations of implementation periods and initial agreements trust and confidence are often stretched and it is on those occasions that those who are truly committed to finding a way forward and providing a new beginning on both sides of the divide must be at their most courageous.

I agree entirely that the visit of Sharon was a provocation that should not have taken place. However, there then followed an extreme reaction from the Palestinians and the violence that erupted provoked a further reaction from the Israeli defence forces. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of peace has been replaced by a rhetoric of hate and conflict, primarily from those opposed to the achievement of an ultimate peace agreement resolving the difficult and outstanding issues that must be addressed, particularly in east Jerusalem and sovereignty over holy places for the different religious groupings.

Neither side should allow those on the other to oppose a final agreement through provocative behaviour which acts as the catalyst for extreme and disproportionate reaction to destroy the peace process. Such reaction, by destroying trust and confidence, ultimately undermines political support for peacemakers and achieves the objectives of extremists committed to an ongoing conflict. Sharon through his act of provocation has politically undermined public confidence in Barak, an Israeli Prime Minister who has gone further in seeking to resolve and reach agreement on untractable issues than any of his predecessors had the capacity to do.

The reaction from the Palestinian side was a rhetoric of hate from radio stations and people involved in the Palestinian Authority. There was the release of Hamas terrorists, while Hizbollah on the Lebanese border captured Israeli soldiers. There was also the destruction of Joseph's Tomb. This series of events resulted, tragically, in a substantial number of deaths on both sides, although more Palestinians than Israelis have lost their lives.

When we consider the situation, it is correct to regret deeply any deaths that occurred on either side. However, one wonders, when counts are done, whether the implication is that we would understand it more if an equal number of people died on both sides. The reality is that, tragically, in the past three weeks, the Prime Minister of Israel, who was committed to a peace process, and President Arafat, who made great strides along the same route of a peace process, have found themselves captured by events that have practically destroyed and sabotaged that process.

Instead of a concentration on how to bring the process to a completion, which allows both sides to enter into the essential and necessary compromises that are always involved in a peace process, it appears that the focus is on analysing the events that have taken place. The events of recent weeks have done great damage.

Two points should be made. President Clinton and the Americans have acted as honest brokers. President Clinton has been as politically committed to achieving peace in the Middle East as he has to achieving peace on this island. We in Ireland should not suggest otherwise. It is also important to note that President Mubarak of Egypt in recent days has played an important role in seeking to de-escalate the conflict and making it clear to those who would like it to escalate, such as the Governments in Iraq, Iran and Libya, which have their own agendas, and the Hamas and Hizbollah groups, that war is not a game.

The summit due to take place in Egypt this weekend should be seen as a further step towards resolving the problem and should not contribute additional rhetoric to escalate the conflict that has occurred recently.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It was never more appropriate to support the prayer, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall possess the land". In this instance the peacemakers are entitled to our support, constant reassurance and encouragement in the face of what are for them considerable difficulties in terms of religious fanatics. I take the Minister's point and the sad irony is that the holy places respected by Christianity, Islam and Jewry are now becoming the scenes of violence. We cannot accept this irony or sadness and, therefore, those of us who respect principles based on our prevailing religious ethos or our fundamental respect for rights must stand in support of those peacemakers.

Two such peacemakers appeared before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday – I was privileged to be selected by my colleagues to chair the meeting – the Israeli Ambassador, Mr. Mark Sofer, and the Delegate General of Palestine in Ireland, Dr. Youssef Allan, who is present in the House. Despite, or perhaps because of, the pain, the sorrow and maybe the anger they felt, they were able to give an example in their presentations and concerns of the type of commitment to peace that we are all obliged to support.

This has always been Ireland's position on this and other issues. I was privileged in 1979 as the then president of the Council of the EEC Ministers to be able to mention for the first time on behalf of the nine member states in my address to the United Nations the Palestinian Liberation Organisation as a party to be consulted. It had never been mentioned before but the formula I found was that Resolutions 242 and 347 had to be respected by all parties to the conflict, including the Palestinian Liberation Organisation.

We have come a long way since then because everyone now recognises that its leader, Yasser Arafat, plays a key role. The role of Prime Minister Barak is also key and each of them faces great difficulties because of the mob elements on the Palestinian side and the religious fanaticism on the Israeli side that are evident at times. We have inherited a trace of that on this island. Those of us with deep seated religious views should tell those who use those principles and religion to generate hatred, animosity and disrespect that this is not the way anybody can travel on the path to peace.

I endorse the views expressed by colleagues. The Minister mentioned the danger of a threat to the stability of the whole region. My view is that it is more than that; it is the danger of a threat to the stability of world peace. The difference between unacceptable violence on this island and in the Middle East is that even if there was full conflict in Ireland, it would not pose the risk of instability even in the European region, let alone the world at large. However, because of the key significance of the region, the current violence poses the risk not only of conflict in the Middle East. Potentially it is only place in the world where there could be the outbreak of universal conflict. Therefore, we all have a stake in it.

It is not only a matter for the Israelis or the Palestinian people. We respect their rights but it is a matter for every individual citizen in the world and those of us who are democratically elected representatives must make that point. No one can risk an outbreak of violence throughout the world and we have a right and an obligation to involve ourselves.

The unanimity in the House must reassure the parties who are working towards peace. I share the views expressed by a number of Members that the European Union has a dynamic obligation in this area. I support, as would the Minister I am sure, any move to achieve an active, vigorous and consistent role on the part of the European Union in this area. I was privileged to be involved at that level once and our practice and principle over the years obliges us to continue that role and to have Europe involved as a central peacemaker.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Two weeks ago, it appeared that a new peace agreement was in store between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government. Now a regional war is threatened with incalculable consequences. The reason for this dramatic turn around is the cynical diplomacy and the shameless deals pushed by a super power, the United States, and involving the EU, that have utterly betrayed the aspirations of the Palestinian people. They have also betrayed the aspirations of a majority of the working class people of Israel who have shown that they do not wish to pursue the route of war.

The agreement in Oslo in 1993 was flawed; it was a fudge and a betrayal of the Palestinian masses. This is now being demonstrated. An agreement which does not recognise and vindicate the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign and independent state is doomed to ignominious collapse. When Sharon, the arch-reactionary butcher of innocent men, women and children in Sabra and Chatila, went to the Temple Mount, he was merely throwing a match on a powder-keg that was already primed to explode.

Since Oslo in 1993, the position of the mass of the Palestinian people has become worse in terms of poverty and unemployment. In the 1990s, I visited Gaza and the West Bank. I went to the refugee camps, spoke to disenfranchised youths and saw the misery there. Unfortunately, Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Authority has not addressed one of these problems in a meaningful way. It is, in fact, the basis of an oppressive and dictatorial system where currently heavy press censorship, the rights of journalists and the human rights of activists and strike leaders are frequently transgressed. People are arrested without trial. That is not the state I believe the Palestinians wish to have.

Who has the solution? Not the Arab regimes who are thoroughly corrupt and more terrified of their own masses than of anything else, nor the United States which is interested only in exploitation and oil. The USA is guilty of massive hypocrisy. How mild was the condemnation of the slaughter of 100 Palestinian youths in two weeks compared to how such an act might have been greeted if carried out by the brutal Milosevic regime. The Israeli State certainly does not have the solution either, as it is answering to Israeli big business.

There is a possible solution, which is to remove the imperial powers and the corrupt dictatorships. An agreement is possible on the basis of an approach where economic justice and the civil rights of the masses of the people, both Palestinian and Israeli, are respected. That would involve the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign state, the right of the Israeli State to exist – the borders to be discussed and agreed – and justice for the millions of Palestinian refugees outside the borders. It is possible to reach a peaceful accommodation on Jerusalem.

Crucially, the freeing of the mineral wealth and other resources of the Middle East for the benefit of the people, rather than for the dictatorships and the imperial powers, can lay the basis for a solution. Clearly, imperialism offers the people of the Middle East nothing but a future of bloodshed, terror and disintegration. A coming together of the disenfranchised masses in the struggle for socialism can bring peace, freedom and prosperity. That is the solution.

Mr. Gormley

The Minister's speech was typical of the balancing act of Irish foreign policy. He referred to Mr. Sharon's provocative visit, the excessive use of force by the Israelis, and he denounced the murder of the two Israeli soldiers. No one can disagree with those sentiments, but the Minister should have gone further. We are talking about helicopter gunships versus catapults, and about the murder of a 12 year old child cowering behind his father. We are really talking about the disproportionate use of force which the Minister should have condemned unequivocally.

Mr. Cowen

I did.

Mr. Gormley

I listened to the Minister's speech carefully, yet he failed to do so because Irish foreign policy is now dictated by the United States and the European Union. Having listened to the Minister's speech, I do not hold out much hope for an independent voice on the UN Security Council. The leading article in last Sunday's Observer newspaper captured the sentiments very well when it stated that:

If Palestinians were black, Israel would now be a pariah state, subject to economic sanctions led by the United States. Its development and settlement of the West Bank would be seen as a system of apartheid in which the indigenous population was allowed to live in a tiny fraction of its own country.

The Observer article went on to say that what we really have there is a system of apartheid where townships are under-resourced, where Israeli Arabs are discriminated against in education, spending and housing, and where the Israelis have the largest proportion of water and electricity which they control.

We are currently witnessing on the West Bank an extraordinary injustice that has been perpetrated against the Palestinians over a long period. We cannot beat around the bush on this issue. As a sovereign nation – or what used to be a sovereign nation – we should have condemned this today.

The Israelis argue that the Oslo accord seven years ago was an opportunity. It is also argued that at Camp David in July, Mr. Ehud Barak offered a partial handover of east Jerusalem and the placing of holy sites outside Jewish control, in order to get a peace deal. The deal that was achieved, however, fell far short of that. We now have Israel as an intransigent partner in the negotiations. I recognise the difficult situation in which Mr. Barak finds himself, but that is the nature of politics. Equally, I recognise that Yasser Arafat finds himself in a very difficult situation. I am calling for our voice to be heard. We cannot have double standards. When the United States speaks about the freedom of the Serbs, what about the freedom of the Palestinians?

In his speech, the Minister talked about our role as peacekeepers. I am quite sure that if the Minister spoke to the peacekeepers in Lebanon they would tell him about the situation as it is occurring on the ground. They would tell him about the people who are in charge there. We are now ending our peacekeeping duties in Lebanon because we are committing our soldiers to the EU rapid reaction force. That says everything about Irish foreign policy at the moment.