Some members feel that contentious motions should not be brought before this committee at this time. This is a contentious issue, but that is the reason we are here. Any member has the right to bring a motion or amendment to the committee. I call Deputy Mulcahy to speak on his motion.
Middle East Peace Process: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That this committee commends the Government for its balanced policy towards Israel and Palestine and requests that it use its position at the heart of the European Union to ensure that this problem remains a priority area for the EU; welcomes the stated intention of the Israeli Government to withdraw from the Gaza strip as part of its implementation of the road-map process; notes with concern the escalation of violent acts emanating from both sides to the conflict, which said acts serve only to impede and frustrate peace efforts; welcomes the clear decision of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the wall separating and encircling the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the subsequent United Nations General Assembly resolution to the same effect which was backed unanimously by all 25 European Union member states, but notes with regret that construction of the wall has continued; notes that the Euro-Mediterranean Association agreement between the European Communities and Israel includes in Article 2 a provision stating that the agreement is based on respect for human rights and democratic principles and considers that this clause is an important demonstration of the weight the European Union attaches to the respect of human rights and provides a mechanism to bring the EU's influence to bear in cases of non-respect of human rights; notes with regret that severe human rights violations continue to be committed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by the military forces of one of the parties to the agreement and that the European Union has repeatedly called for an end to these violations and has addressed the issue in meetings of the Euro-Mediterranean Council; notes with regret that despite the positions taken and statements issued to date by the European Union these human rights violations have continued and that a number of human rights associations have called for the use of Article 2 of the association agreement as a mechanism to bring about the end of these violations; and considers that the European Union has a moral obligation to use all diplomatic means at its disposal to bring an end to these violations and to promote a peaceful and negotiated settlement.
I thank the Chairman for his comment. This motion was not drafted lightly, but took a few months gestation. If members read through the motion, they will realise it is not so contentious. I will go through it quickly paragraph by paragraph.
First, it commends the Government on its balanced policy towards Israel and Palestine and requests that it uses its position at the heart of the European Union to ensure this problem remains a priority area for the Union. There is no point going over this again as we have heard what the Minister of State had to say. I refer those interested to previous statements of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in this regard. I refer people especially to the speech by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs to the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly on 23 September 2004. That speech displays the traditional Irish balanced policy towards this issue.
This motion welcomes the stated intention of the Israeli Government to withdraw from the Gaza Strip as part of its implementation of the road map process. This relates to what Senator Quinn said and also to what the Minister of State said. The withdrawal is welcome if it is part of the road map peace process and not simply a solo run by the Israeli Government.
The motion notes with concern the escalation of violent acts emanating from both sides to the conflict, which said acts only serve to impede and frustrate peace efforts. This speaks for itself. There have been violent acts on both sides and they do not help bring forward peace in the Middle East.
It welcomes the clear decision of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the wall separating and encircling the Palestinian population and the subsequent UN General Assembly resolution to the same effect. I have done a little research on this and will outline some of the conclusions from that court case that members may find of interest. The first conclusion was that the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around east Jerusalem and its associated regime, is contrary to international law. The second was that Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law. It is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around east Jerusalem; to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated; and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto and in accordance with paragraph 151 of the opinion. Both of these conclusions were carried 14 to 1. There were also three other conclusions which were also carried by 14 to I in the International Court of Justice.
The motion goes on to note that the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement, between the EU and Israel, contains in Article 2 a provision stating the agreement is based on respect for human rights and democratic values. Earlier this year, in April, I attended the first and inaugural meeting of the European-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly. That body is one of the few in which Israel participates as a full member. It was fantastic to see Israeli parliamentarians sitting side by side with parliamentarians from Middle Eastern states on the basis of total equality. At that assembly, the then chairman of the European Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox, MEP, insisted that Israel be given one of the vice-presidencies of the assembly, which it got. This echoes what the Minister of State said about engagement. The only way forward is to engage Israel, not to back it further into a corner. For that reason it would be a mistake to suspend the Euro-Mediterranean, or what is called the Barcelona process, with regard to Israel.
The motion notes with regret that severe human rights violations have been and continue to be committed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by the military forces of one of the parties to this agreement. Reference was made to this in a recent speech in an Adjournment debate in the Dáil on 6 October by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. He echoed these sentiments. However, at the time I wrote this motion I had not read what he said, nor did I consult with the Government on the drafting of it.
The motion notes with regret that despite the positions taken and statements issued to date by the European Union, these human rights violations have continued and that a number of human rights associations have called for the use of the articles of association agreement as a method of bringing about an end to these violations. It considers that the European Union has a moral obligation to use all diplomatic means at its disposal to bring about an end to these violations and to promote a peaceful and negotiated settlement. This echoes, in a non-contentious manner, what the Minister of State said earlier today.
I thank the co-sponsors of this motion, Deputies Andrews, Carey and Haughey and Senator Ormonde. I add with respect that while I agree with much of the amendment, I cannot agree with some parts, particularly the paragraph that calls for the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement or the final paragraph that requests the Government to ensure the Minister for Foreign Affairs should not agree to the extension of everything-but-institutions between Israel. This is related to the new European neighbourhood policy. This proposal would have the effect of further isolating Israel, as opposed to engaging it.
The message of my motion is clear. We have the ruling of the International Court of Justice on this wall. It is in clear conflict with international law and must be dismantled. This is the signal we want to send unambiguously to Israel. We want the Government to echo that at all European Council meetings and I hope nobody disagrees with this point. Perhaps, if no action is taken on the wall, we and the Government will have to consider further steps against Israel. However, for the moment we must wait and see.
Senator Quinn said that if the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is successful and is part of the peace process and if the United States engages further in the road map after the election, that might bring positive results. I ask my colleagues to support the motion. It is a balanced as I could draft it in the circumstances.
I move amendment No 1:
To delete the words after "to ensure that this problem remains a priority area for the EU" and to substitute the following:
deplores all human rights violations and other violations of international law perpetrated during the course of this conflict and calls for their end; considers that the European Union has a moral obligation to use all diplomatic means at its disposal to bring an end to these violations and promote a peaceful and negotiated settlement; notes with regret that grave and systematic human rights violations by the Israeli Defence Forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip continue despite repeated calls on the Government of Israel by the European Union to end these violations; notes the raising of this issue in meetings of the Euro-Mediterranean Council; welcomes the clear decision of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the wall separating and encircling the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the subsequent United Nations General Assembly resolution to the same effect which was backed unanimously by all 25 EU member states; notes with regret that construction of the wall has continued regardless; notes that the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement between the European Communities and Israel includes in Article 2 a provision stating the agreement is based on respect for human rights and democratic principles thus providing a mechanism to bring the European Union's influence to bear in cases of non-respect for human rights; notes that a number of human rights associations and parliamentarians in Ireland and throughout the EU have called for the use of Article 2 of the association agreement as a mechanism to bring about an end to these violations of human rights and international law by Israel; considers that the value of the inclusion of a human rights clause in the European Union's association agreements with third countries will be brought into disrepute if no action is taken on foot thereof given the lack of progress in addressing Israel's human rights violations through other mechanisms; therefore requests that the Government ensures the Minister and relevant Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs propose to the General Affairs and External Relations Council the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement under Articles 2 and 79 until such time as there has been a significant and measurable improvement in compliance with international human rights standards and, specifically, until there is compliance with the International Court of Justice ruling and the UN resolution on the separation wall; considers that for these same reasons the deepening of relations with Israel under the European neighbourhood policy by the extension of an everything-but-institutions agreement with Israel sends the wrong signal and is therefore inappropriate at this time; and therefore requests that the Government ensures the Minister and relevant Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs do not agree to the extension of an everything-but-institutions agreement with Israel until such time as human rights violations by Israel have effectively ceased and there is full compliance with the International Court of Justice ruling and the relevant UN resolutions.
A time comes when we must speak out against injustice and must stand up and be counted. In the past, when the time came to speak out against the apartheid regime in South Africa and to depart from the international comfort zone and call for sanctions against a persistent human rights violator, a country which consistently opposed the will of the international community, Ireland stood up and was counted. Such a time has come with regard to Israel's occupation of Palestine and we should be seen to lead the way.
I welcome and support the intentions of the motion proposed by the Deputies and Senators. I was one of those who asked Deputy Mulcahy when his motion would come before us because I knew he intended putting it to the committee. I believe we should use the mechanism of a motion to allow proper and constructive debate on issues. These motions are not contentious. We have a duty to discuss these issues and tease out our stance on them. Otherwise, we must wait for a debate, if it ever happens, in the Chamber. Often we do not get the proper opportunity to debate and tease out the issues.
My major problem with the motion is that it has no teeth and that is the reason for my amendment. I tried to retain much of the substance of the original motion in my amendment — for example, paragraph one is retained in full. The language and sentiment of paragraphs four to seven are similar. The language of the original motion needed strengthening so that we send out a clearer, stronger message, notwithstanding what the Minister of State and others said concerning the need to be careful and that we should seek consensus and not be contentious because major progress was being made. Perhaps Prime Minister Sharon's move is the first jump. However, if passed, my amendment would, rather than hinder the process as some people suggested, give an impetus to it and ensure that Prime Minister Sharon and others continue the step taken last night.
My first main point of departure, as pointed out by Deputy Mulcahy, is to have in the amendment the clear instruction to Government to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement, under Articles 2 and 79, until such time as there has been a significant and measurable improvement in compliance with international human rights, the International Court of Justice ruling and the UN General Assembly resolution on the separation wall. There is no point in putting such clauses into agreements unless at some stage of the process or agreement somebody examines it and decides that action must be taken against the partner in breach of the agreement. It is not good enough to wait and pass resolutions that have no teeth. The Israelis know how weak these are because of previous court judgments and because others, including the European Parliament, have passed motions or spoken out against Israel's continuing human rights violations.
The other main difference between the motion and my amendment is that I have asked that we should not proceed with the neighbourhood policy until such time as human rights violations by Israel have, effectively, ceased. Other countries, for example, Moldova, Ukraine, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, are waiting to have the neighbourhood policy passed, but they do not stand on the same footing as Israel. We should proceed with the policy with those countries so that they may enjoy the benefits of it. However, Israel should be told in no uncertain terms that if it continues in the vein of recent years, particularly when we had the hope of progress through the road map, that the European Union will not play ball.
The Minister of State said in reply to previous questions that he will not suspend the agreement or delay Israel becoming part of the European neighbourhood policy because there would not be agreement at European Union level. This is the wrong attitude because there should be a first step. We must be seen to take that first step and lead the charge. We must create a momentum and send out a message. Otherwise, we must wait forever for a consensus in Europe.
Two years ago, the European Parliament passed a motion similar to what I have suggested. Earlier this year the international development committee of the British House of Commons also recommended the suspension of the agreement. Therefore, we are not necessarily out of touch with the rest of Europe. Some 275 members of national parliaments across the European Union, including 52 Irish representatives, have signed a petition calling for the Israeli Government to cease construction of the wall. Many human rights organisations, NGOs in Europe and around the world have also demanded that the European Union should use Articles 2 and 79 as intended. If it was not intended to use them, why were they included in the association agreement? I could provide a detailed list of the violations recorded against Israel, but the majority of members are well aware of them as we have dealt with them.
I reiterate that I am not being contentious in proposing this amendment, but am trying to be constructive. I presume the reason the articles were included in the association agreement was to be constructive. They were also included to remind Israel that sanctions exist that can be imposed against it if it does not comply with an agreement to which it signed up. Israel signed up to these articles of the agreement. It also signed up to the road map which it seems to have shredded in recent months in particular. I hope it will see the need to endorse fully the road map, to withdraw from the areas where it has been in breach of the agreement, and not actively continue to undermine the road map. The quartet must re-engage fully in the process and the European Union must select its monitoring committees, as proposed initially in the road map process.
I shall open the debate and allow members to speak on both the motion and the amendment before putting the question on both.
I agree with much of the previous speaker's comments but am in full agreement with the original motion. We must try to be balanced on this issue. In fairness to the current and previous Governments, they have maintained a balanced and even-handed approach to this difficult conflict situation in the Middle East. Historically, we were one of the first countries to call for a separate state for Palestine, although that call has not been fully accepted by every Israeli citizen. We have also always been firm in our view that the state of Israel has a right to a secure existence. Tragically, that argument is not fully accepted by every Palestinian either and therein lies the problem. As of now there is a strong siege mentality among the Israeli populace and government.
I agree with what Senator Quinn said earlier when the Minister of State was here. We must try to look positively at what the most recent political developments in Israel could mean. We must also focus on the fact that Israel did sign up to the road map agreement. The centre of our deliberations and Government policy must be to try and ensure that was contained in the road map will be implemented. Nobody anywhere can defend the creation of this separation wall, peace wall or whatever it may called. Deputy Carey and I heard various people at the sub-committee on human rights discuss the wall. It is not just a physical monstrosity, but is creating a human tragedy and stirring up problems for the future, not just from a human rights perspective but from an economic and social one. The Government must be strong in its condemnation of it.
We must also ensure we continue to speak strongly against not just the human rights violations but also the suicide bombings because for every atrocity on one side in the Middle East, we sadly and tragically have an atrocity on the other. The previous Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, tried and the current Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is trying to maintain a balanced approach.
My difficulty with the amendment put forward by Deputy Ó Snodaigh is his call for an end to Israeli involvement in the European neighbourhood policy. We have seen in our country, and Deputy Ó Snodaigh and his party know this more than any of us, that excluding people or parties from talks, dialogue or participation does not work. If we have a political problem, as it is clear we do, with certain Israeli politicians and policies, it is best to keep all of them involved in political dialogue to the maximum degree. To exclude any side in a far from one-sided political problem does not help. Deputy Mulcahy spoke about the European neighbourhood policy at Mediterranean level. There at least, Israeli parliamentarians are present. People there can talk face to face, outline their arguments, listen to others' concerns and put forward their own proposals. The neighbourhood policy can only be helpful. I would not be happy with any proposals of this committee that would exclude rather than include participants.
The motion put forward by Deputy Mulcahy and his colleagues is more inclusive and balanced than the amendment. It strikes the right chord and clearly outlines our view as a committee that such issues as the building of the wall are improper and immoral and that human rights violations must come to an end. It does this in a more inclusive fashion than the amendment. We have seen that attempting to solve difficult problems by way of exclusion does not work. We need to have all the relevant parties talking at whatever forum into which we can drag them.
I agree with the Chairman's remarks on contentious motions. The committee has a responsibility to consider motions that are tabled. I do not see this motion or amendment in the contentious category because there is widespread agreement and little difference between them.
It is desirable that we have an agreed view and that this should be the view of Parliament rather than Government. There is an important distinction between the two and I say that as a member of one of the parties in Government. Parliament should have an independent view which may or may not coincide with that of the Government. Developing such views is one of the useful things this committee can do, and not just on this issue. We have had agreed motions on this issue in the past and as far as I can recall, we had one in the Seanad. If it can be done in that way, that is how it should be done. Therefore, it is desirable that whoever drafts such a motion should canvass the views of others before drawing up the draft.
I had the privilege of visiting Gaza on two occasions where I visited Jabalya refugee camp and also the refugee camp outside Bethlehem on the West Bank. I monitored the first Palestinian elections. I was in Gaza for the election and it was an inspiring occasion because, with few exceptions, overwhelming numbers of the Palestinian population voted and expressed their views through the ballot box. In the afternoon we had to get alternative plastic bags for the ballots that were cast later. They had to be inspected and sealed with wax and so on. It was a very special occasion.
I suppose one leaves the area with a great deal of sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinian people. However, one must also have a great deal of sympathy for the pain inflicted on the Israelis by the rockets, suicide bombers and, recently, where the conflict was taken outside the immediate territory to European Union citizens who lost their lives in the bombing of hotels. I do not by choice look at CNN. However, I watched it in France at the weekend because it is the only available news bulletin. In one bulletin an elderly Israeli lady who was living in the Gaza Strip said she would not move irrespective of what Mr. Sharon said. She said she was born in England, raised in America and she would not leave her home. She drew a parallel between that and what might happen in America. Of course, the difference was that someone had lost their property in Gaza, without any rights, to allow her to set up home there. It should resonate with Irish people that there are many settlements where the people were just cleared out and got nothing. I have seen houses in the Gaza Strip that were razed to the ground by bulldozers on hearsay evidence, which is not acceptable. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian cause but I would qualify that by saying that I do not tolerate suicide bombings and so on.
On the issue of the wall, I attended a meeting recently where a director of CRH was challenged on the matter. I should declare an interest because I am a shareholder in the company. He said there was just one cement company in Israel, CRH had invested in it and the cement must be used in the wall, and CRH had nothing to do with it. I do not think this is good enough. One has choices about whether to invest in a company. I would not be comfortable with a situation where an Irish company would be involved in that sort of activity.
I believe the road map is the only show in town, which must be supported. The UN resolutions are there for all to see. They must be supported and we as members of the United Nations would them. In that context the motion is a good one. It is timely and I hope it will be helpful. I am disposed to voting for the motion but I would prefer if there was an agreed position, if possible.
I have a fear of saying the right thing but at the wrong time. I listened to Deputy Ó Snodaigh who said he wished to be constructive and not contentious, which I accept. He also spoke about how now is the time to speak out on injustice. He is correct because there are times when we must do so. I recall times during the peace process in Northern Ireland when it would have been the wrong time to make statements which would not be helpful. That did not mean the statements were wrong but it meant the time was wrong.
Last night, the majority vote in the Knesset was much larger than most people thought. As Deputy Dardis said, I believe the road map is the only show in town and that a withdrawal from Gaza, which will create so much space, is a ray of hope. I believe the Israelis will insist on the withdrawal if they decide on it regardless of whether one may wish to stay there. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy's motion. However, I recall times in Northern Ireland when those who were besieged on either side felt they had to protect themselves in some form or other, even though the way they did so may not have been agreed by those a long way away. It is fairly easy for us at this distance to say that the Israelis should not have built a wall, they should have done something else. The Israelis decided, against significant disapproval from around the world, that this is what they would do when their children and families were being attacked and killed. It may not have been the right decision but who are we to decide at this stage?
I suggest that while the motion and Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment have been tabled with the best intentions, the timing is wrong. It is a good time to debate the issue but I do not think it should be put to a vote. I do not think we should send that message at this stage. We should take time, given that the vote in the Knesset was won by a large majority. Prime Minister Sharon should be given a chance in this case. When we look back on history we see many people who took chances. While we did not always believe things would work, they took chances and they turned out to have their heart in the right place.
While the wording of the motion is understandable, the timing is wrong. We should not put the issue to a vote, we should give it some thought. When I was very annoyed about something, I recall someone telling me to write a letter, get it off my chest but not to post it, put it in a drawer and look at it the next week to see if I should post it. I took his advice and I decided a week later that I would not post it. I looked back afterwards and thought it was the right thing to do. I got it off my chest but I did not send the letter. I suggest the debate today is good but we should not post the letter. We should just have the debate and, if necessary, adjourn until another day.
I have already given my views on the motion and I think we should listen to the wise counsel of Senator Quinn.
I do not wish to repeat what has been said already. I support the road map approach but we must remind ourselves why the approach has been taken. It has been taken to try to bind into the process all parties, particularly the United States. I am strongly of the view that the road map has run aground largely because of the deliberate decision of the US Government not to work with it, which is regrettable.
I wonder what Europe can do when the US does not appear to want to engage constructively with those people in Israel who seem to listen to no one else. I am not sure we can do a great deal. Perhaps the most useful thing people in Europe who have the ear of the White House can do is to put as much pressure as possible on their friends in the White House — they may be different people next week, but let us assume they are not — to actively persuade Prime Minister Sharon and his people that they need to go back to the road map.
In terms of direct engagement on the part of the European Union, the best we can do is encourage the significant minority of people in Israel who want to actively engage with the outside world, many of whom deplore the direction Israeli policy has taken in recent years, to ensure they do not give up. I do not think that will be done by isolating the entire country and appearing to send out a message on behalf of Europe that we think all Israelis are bad and that the Israeli state should be driven into the sea. I support the motion.
I will address my comments to what Senator Quinn said. In fairness to Deputy Mulcahy, he circulated the motion among Government Deputies some time ago. This was not done in the heat of the moment. Deputy Mulcahy put some thought into the motion, which is considered and balanced. I take the point that there must be a balance. However, it is not an excuse to do nothing just because one cannot do everything or because the timing may not be appropriate. I would not agree with suspending the agreement because it could have a negative effect on Israeli politics in the context of a possible future election and on Palestinian politics.
We should make a statement on the issue of the wall. The Committee on European Affairs has little or no real power but, from time to time, in light of something as glaring as the wrong being committed here, we cannot shrink back from making a simple statement, which is balanced and considered and not made in the heat of the moment. I support the motion.
In light of what happened last night in the Knesset, and the comments of members here today, is Deputy Ó Snodaigh pressing the amendment?
As I said in my opening remarks, I am pressing it. While what happened in the Knesset is welcome, the Minister said there could be two reasons for it. What we do could give some impetus to the process. While motions have been passed in the Knesset on other occasions, within weeks the exact opposite has occurred. The road map was one such instance. This is why we need to send a statement to the Israeli Government that we are taking the matter seriously and that, pending partial implementation of what was agreed in the Knesset last night, we are seeking a suspension of the agreement and a delay in continuing these policies.
Senator Quinn made a valid point. I did not circulate the motion to everyone, and perhaps I should have. The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was issued on 9 July 2004. With regard to security issues, Ireland has always looked to the UN. It is an extremely strong judgment from the International Court of Justice. No. 4 states that all states are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation by such construction and so on. No. 5 states that the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present advisory opinion. The International Court of Justice decided it should speak out. Ireland has a balanced policy on this issue. We are friends of both sides. We have an Embassy in Israel and there is a high representative of the Palestinian Authority.
The motion is balanced. If there are words other parties wish to change, I will have no problem withdrawing it. It was open to the other parties to change the wording when the motion was circulated to them. Notwithstanding Senator Quinn's valid point on timing, it is important to put a clear statement on the wall on the record. I take an even-handed approach to this issue and I hope I always will. I do not think the motion interferes with this view. I will press the motion.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question put and declared carried.
A report on the motion will be circulated to the committee at the next meeting and thereafter laid before both Houses.
The joint committee went into private session at 4.05 p.m. and adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 November 2004.