JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jun 2009

EU Association Agreement with Israel and Related Matters: Discussion with Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Chairman

No. 1 is a discussion on the EU association agreement with Israel and related matters with the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign which is represented by Ms Marie Crawley, chairperson, Mr. David Morrison, political officer, and Mr. Philip O'Connor, media officer, who will make a presentation to the committee.

Before we begin, I must bring to the attention of witnesses that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I thank the delegation for coming along and I welcome them. I call on Ms Crawley to make the presentation.

Ms Marie Crawley

On behalf of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, I thank the committee for the invitation to deliver a presentation today. I am the chair of the IPSC. I am accompanied by David Morrison, the IPSC's political officer, and Philip O'Connor, the IPSC's media and public relations officer.

David will talk us through the relationship between the European Union and Israel and highlight the double standards in that relationship. Philip will then proceed to talk about the necessity to have formal engagement with Hamas, as the elected representative of the Palestinian people. I will conclude by outlining recommendations which we believe the Government should adopt in its work on Palestine.

Our objective today is, first, to show that Israel has failed to fulfil its obligations under agreement with the European Union and that up to now the EU has turned a blind eye to these failures and continued to enhance its relations with Israel. Second, it is to recommend to the Government that it act on a number of fronts on EU policy on Israel and Palestine. Without further ado, I will hand over to David who will talk us through that relationship.

Mr. David Morrison

The most important development in the EU's relations with Israel occurred in November 1995 with the signing of the Barcelona Declaration which established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. This encompassed the then 15 EU states plus 11 states in the Mediterranean region including Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

Israel was in breach of important obligations under the declaration in November 1995. Nevertheless, the EU allowed it to sign the declaration. Israel has failed to fulfil important obligations under the declaration ever since and the EU has continued to turn a blind eye to its failures. The following are a few examples.

First, the Barcelona Declaration obliges its signatories "to respect the territorial integrity and unity of each of the other partners". In November 1995, parts of Lebanon and Syria were under Israeli military occupation and the Golan Heights had been annexed by Israel. Clearly, Israel was failing to "respect the territorial integrity and unity" of its Lebanese and Syrian partners in November 1995. This continues to be true today since Israel is still occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria and Israeli military aircraft frequently invade Lebanese airspace.

Second, the Barcelona Declaration obliges its signatories to "act in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other obligations under international law". In November 1995 Israel was in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as well as parts of Lebanon and Syria, contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter which obliges UN members to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Israel is still occupying militarily large swathes of territory that are not its own in breach of the UN Charter.

Third, Article 25 of the UN Charter requires UN member states to "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council". In November 1995 Israel was in violation of some 25 Security Council resolutions requiring action by it. By failing to implement these resolutions, Israel was in breach of the UN Charter. Resolutions 446, 452 and 456 demanded that Israel cease building Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. Resolutions 252, 267, 298, 476 and 478 obliged Israel to reverse its annexation of east Jerusalem, while Resolution 497 demanded that it reverse its annexation of the Golan Heights. Resolution 487 demanded that it open its nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection. Had Israel implemented these resolutions at the time they were passed or since, the political landscape in Palestine would have been transformed. It has not done so and, therefore, remains in breach of the UN Charter.

Fourth, the Barcelona Declaration obliges its signatories to act in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of which states everybody " is entitled to equal protection against any discrimination". The state of Israel deliberately discriminates against its Arab minority which makes up nearly 20% of its population and has done so since the foundation of the state. It is, therefore, in breach of Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The European Union has stated this is so, as has the former Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert. For example, a European Union report from April 2004 states "Israeli legislation contains laws and regulations that favour the Jewish majority" and observes that the Arab minority "suffers from discrimination in many areas, including budget allocations, official planning, employment, education and health". Giving evidence to a parliamentary commission of inquiry on 11 November 2008, Mr. Olmert said, "We have not yet overcome the barrier of discrimination, which is a deliberate discrimination, and the gap is insufferable." He went on to say, "It is terrible that there is not even one Arab employee at the Bank of Israel," and observed that Arab workers represented less than 1% of all employees at the electricity company.

Fifth, Israel is in breach of international law and the letter of the Barcelona Declaration by refusing to implement the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the wall it has built on the West Bank. Five years ago, in July 2004, the court declared that the construction of the wall was contrary to international law and ordered Israel to cease its construction forthwith and dismantle the existing structure. Israel has categorically refused to comply with these obligations and continued to build the wall.

Regrettably, in all these matters, the European Union has simply turned a blind eye to the failures of Israel to fulfil its obligations under the Barcelona Declaration. Israel has had privileged access to the Union since 2000 as a result of an association agreement under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, commonly known as the Euromed agreement. This agreement is very important to Israel, given that one third of its exports are to the European Union. Article 2 of the agreement imposes human rights obligations on Israel as follows: "Relations between the parties as well as all the provisions of the agreement itself shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this agreement". This states plainly that human rights compliance by Israel is an essential element of the agreement, not an optional or desirable element.

Israel has continuously failed to live up to the human rights obligations in Article 2. For example, as we have seen, the state of Israel discriminates against its Arab minority. In the words of Ehud Olmert, this discrimination is deliberate and the gap is insufferable. Clearly, Israel's internal policy towards its Arab minority is not guided by respect for human rights and is, therefore, in breach of Article 2. In recent years Israel has engaged in the economic strangulation of Gaza by closing the crossings between Israel and Gaza. This is in breach of international humanitarian law, specifically Articles 33 and 55 of the fourth Geneva Convention which states:

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

Israel has signally failed to fulfil this obligation placed upon the occupying power by international humanitarian law. This is not really a sin of omission on Israel's part; on the contrary, it has been a deliberate act of Israeli policy with the objective of exerting pressure on the people of Gaza collectively to reject Hamas. As such, it is in breach of Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention which forbids the occupying power from applying "collective penalties" on people under occupation. Israel's economic blockade of Gaza is contrary to international law and it is, therefore, in breach of Article 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement.

In the military assault on Gaza which began on 27 December Israeli forces killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 400 women and children. Various inquiries by UN bodies and independent human rights NGOs have produced extensive evidence of human rights violations by Israeli forces amounting in many instances to war crimes. Regrettably, the European Union has turned a blind eye to all these failures on the part of Israel to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

I would like to make a few comments on recent developments, the most important of which is the current initiative by the US President, Mr. Obama, for another round of negotiations between Israel and the PLO, provided Israel accepts that the goal of these negotiations is "an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state". The goal is laid down in the road map which the Israeli Government, led by Ariel Sharon, agreed to in May 2003. Israel should simply not be allowed to set aside past agreements, a condition it constantly imposes on the Palestinian side. The Israeli Government, led by Benyamin Netanyahu, is unwilling to accept this as the ultimate outcome. In a speech on 14 June, for example, he made it clear that the Palestinian state which was envisaged would be, at best, a very limited form of autonomy and, in fact, would come close to a Bantustan or open prison, with Israel retaining ultimate control over all aspects of land, sea and air. This could not be described in any way as an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state which is the aim of the international community.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has also set his face against freezing all settlement activity, let alone even discussing what is to happen to the illegal settlements which already contain more than 500,000 settlers on Palestinian land on the West Bank and in east Jerusalem. This is despite the fact that this is also set out in the road map. It is essential that the colonisation process be halted before negotiations begin and remain halted during the negotiations. I stress that this is also the position of our Government. For example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, told the Dáil a few months ago:

I have repeatedly expressed my serious concerns regarding the construction and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As I have stated on several occasions, continued settlement construction has a direct and negative impact on the political process. It also prejudges the outcome of final status negotiations and threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution.

We wholeheartedly agree with the Minister.

During the eight years of peace negotiations after the signing of the Oslo Accord, the number of Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories doubled. This was the reward the PLO received for recognising Israel's right to exist and entering into negotiations with it. As I said, the population of illegal Israeli settlers now numbers 500,000. Commenting on this, Michael Terazi, a legal adviser to the PLO, said:

It's like you and I are negotiating over a piece of pizza. How much of the pizza do I get? And how much do you get? And while we are negotiating it, you are eating it.

This described the process under way starkly and with black humour.

If Israel remains unwilling to commit to an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state and cease planting Jewish settlers on the territory meant for that state, a further round of negotiations is pointless. The only political option will then be a single bi-national state with a Palestinian majority. In the 21st century an Israeli Government cannot forever rule over all the people between the River Jordan and the sea, as it has done since 1967, without a proper democratic mandate. Everyone currently subject to Israeli rule must be given a vote. Needless to say, this option is not contemplated in Israel.

I will address the issue of engaging with Hamas which in recent years has become the great bogeyman and latest reason for refusing to engage in negotiations with the Palestinian side. I should point out, as we did to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in January, that a ceasefire was in place for six months before Israel broke it on 4 November last year. During this six month period no Hamas mortars or rockets were fired out of Gaza. Under pressure from Egypt and others to engage with the political process, Hamas stood for election in 2005. At the time the organisation was also on ceasefire.

In the context of the current blockade on Gaza, under the November 2005 agreement on movement and access sponsored by the United States and Israel, the latter promised that crossings between Israel and Gaza — I do not refer to the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza which receives much media attention — would operate continuously in order that people and goods could move in and out of Gaza. The total blockade being imposed on Gaza includes the permanent closure of all these access points. Israel broke its promise. It also promised bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza beginning in December 2005 and the development of a sea port and airport in Gaza, none of which has occurred. The European Union is forever demanding that Palestinians adhere to past agreements. It is long past time the European Union insisted that Israel adhere to the agreements to which it signed up.

It is unrealistic to suppose a settlement can be arrived at in Palestine without the involvement of Hamas. The organisation represents too large a proportion of Palestinians — perhaps a majority — on the West Bank and Gaza. Engagement with Hamas is required without the preconditions that make such engagement impossible. When Hamas contested elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006, it won 74 of the 132 seats and secured a majority of seats on both the West Bank and Gaza. At the time the organisation had not engaged in armed resistance for nearly a year, having maintained a truce from February 2005. Hamas spokesmen made it clear then and continue to make it clear, as we noted recently when former President Carter reported back to President Obama on his talks with Ismail Haniya and Louis Michel, that they are seeking a long-term truce with Israel, the price being Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. The Hamas leadership stated in 2005 that it was prepared to work a solution along these lines on the basis of the 1967 borders. It recently restated that position.

As part of the solution, Hamas must be engaged in the peace process and can no longer be used as an excuse for not engaging with the Palestinian side. Starting a Middle East peace process without Hamas in 2009 is as unrealistic as a peace process in Northern Ireland would have been in the 1990s without engaging with Sinn Féin, as George Mitchell who has been appointed President Obama's special envoy to the Middle East no doubt recognises.

Ms Marie Crawley

I propose to make some recommendations and outline specifically what is required of the Government. The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign calls on it to publicly demand that the Euromed agreement, under which Israel has privileged access to the European Union market, be suspended until such time as Israel complies with international law. The Government should also call for a formal inquiry into whether Israel is fulfilling its obligations according to Article 2 of the Euromed agreement. Progress on the motion passed by the Joint Committee on European Affairs in January this year would be the ideal catalyst for the Government to act on such an initiative within the European Union.

The IPSC urges the Government to veto any proposed upgrade in EU relations with Israel until the latter complies with international law. While we welcome the recent decision not to implement the latest decision on the upgrade and, in effect, suspend the upgrade process, this step is insufficient. What is needed is a reversal of the current relationship with Israel. We call on the Government to demand publicly that Israel reverse its settlement construction, illegal occupation and annexation of land in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and use its influence in international fora to bring about this outcome.

Much of the discourse recently has been about halting the natural growth and expansion of settlements. This course of action is insufficient. What is needed is a reversal of the settlement programme. We also demand that the EU re-engage with Hamas as the political party elected by the Palestinian people and insist that Israel honour commitments given in previous peace negotiations.

Why should the Irish Government act on these particular recommendations? We believe it has the support of the Irish people to do so. This is one of the aspects of foreign policy about which Irish people are well informed. Irish people support the Palestinian people. We believe that the recommendations and calls we have made have the overwhelming support of the people. EU foreign policy will again be a factor in the second Lisbon treaty referendum. By acting on the recommendations we have outlined, Ireland would demonstrate that it is willing to stand out and exercise an independent foreign policy within the European Union. Israel will continue to act with impunity. We risk a repeat of the recent onslaught in Gaza until some Government makes a stand and demonstrates this is no longer acceptable.

This committee has already passed strong motions which are consistent with the calls of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign. We urge the committee to exert pressure on Government to take actions based on those positions. We believe that the Irish Government, because it has the support of the people, has the moral and political courage to take the diplomatic steps we have outlined and in so doing to issue the strongest possible statement that Ireland will not collude with a State that systematically brutalises and oppresses the people of Palestine and strips them of their right to self-determination.

Chairman

As Ms Crawley rightly stated, this debate arose out of a debate on 15 January last when a number of motions were put forward and adopted by the committee. A proposal has been put forward that committee members visit Gaza. While it was not possible heretofore to do so, it may be possible to do so between now and October. I thank Ms Crawley for her presentation which sets out the situation as she sees it.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I thank Ms Crawley for her contribution. I have a series of questions which I would like to ask. I am conscious of the fact that the genesis of the motion passed in January was whether, as a matter of fact, there has been a breach of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement 1995. I regret that once again the main proponents of the motion are not present today. This is not the first time this has occurred, which is regrettable. I hope we will be able to obtain a hard copy of the group's submission today.

Based on the motion and what we have heard from the group, it would appear that Israel, without pre-empting the decision of the committee, is in breach of Article 2 of the Euromed agreement. I regret the position taken by Mr. Netanyahu since taking up office. I recently visited the West Bank in Gaza. What is happening there is unacceptable and must be addressed by the international community. Notwithstanding that, there are a couple of questions I would like answered.

Perhaps Ms Crawley will tell us a little about the Ireland-Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, including how many members it has, from where it gets its funding and when it was first set up. Is the Government of any EU member country currently directly engaged with Hamas or has any Government done so in the past? What is the group's view of Hamas and how would they describe it? Ms Crawley referred earlier to Hamas as the legitimately elected Government of Palestine. I would like to know what is the group's view of Hamas? Is it a political or terrorist group or a combination of both? I accept the question may be outside the group's remit. I am sure that prior to making her submission Ms Crawley looked at other agreements the EU has with other countries such as China. Is the EU under pressure to suspend those agreements? Perhaps Ms Crawley will set out her view in this regard.

I saw the wall that is being constructed. It is a terrible sight and does not follow any agreed line. Perhaps Ms Crawley will say if the group agrees with the concept of the wall in the first instance. Does it think there was any basis for its construction? What was the motivation behind it and was it correct? Does it have any legitimacy? Why was it built? Were there grounds for its construction in the past? How should Israel be advised on the maintenance of its security?

It was mentioned that no rockets had been fired by Hamas during the ceasefire, but were any rockets fired during that period and, if so, how many? Is there a ceasefire in place? There was a ceasefire initially for a period, but what is the present state of play?

Has President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority been in talks with Hamas recently? Does he engage with Hamas? Has he visited the Gaza Strip since the conflict started and, if not, why not?

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I thank the group for coming and making its presentation. My position is that I want to see a peace process that will lead to two viable and secure states living peacefully side by side. Ireland and the European Union should play the role of honest broker as far as possible.

The agreement does not consider suspension. Article 79.2 states that, if either party considers that the other has failed to fulfil an obligation under the agreement, it may take appropriate measures. Before doing so, except in cases of special urgency, it shall supply the Association Council with all relevant information required for a thorough examination of the matter with a view to seeking a solution acceptable to the parties. In the selection of measures priority should be given to those that least disturb the function of the agreement. Article 82 states the agreement is concluded for an unlimited period and that each of the parties may denounce the agreement by notifying the other. The agreement shall cease to apply six months after the date of such notification. The agreement, therefore, can only be brought to an end unilaterally. What the group is calling for would bring it to an end because there is nothing in it that allows for suspension. Article 79 mentions seeking a solution when issues arise. The wording is mainly concerned with trade, but the agreement adopts a positive approach to problem solving, dialogue and diplomacy. To end it would go against the idea of negotiating solutions to problems that arise, although I am not saying the group has not raised legitimate issues.

From what I have seen on the Internet, the group is asking for much more than even the Palestinians themselves. Salaam Fayad has asked in correspondence that relations not be upgraded until certain things have happened, not that the agreement be reversed, which is very different. The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is asking for a much greater move with far greater consequences.

There are other agreements with other countries such as Turkey and Egypt which involved requirements on democracy and human rights. Although of a different scale, one could argue that those agreements are not achieving as much as they could in terms of human rights and democracy in those countries. There is also work going on to develop relations between the EU and other Arab countries on trade and similar type arrangements.

This would be a singling out of Israel. It would be a hostile act. Existing arrangements with the Palestinian authorities which, I understand, are interim, informal, etc., would still be in place. The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is not looking for that to change and would single out Israel. There would be people affected in Israel. There would be Palestinian people affected who are involved in part of the trade with the European Union. There would be people in Ireland who would be affected. Many people, not decision-makers but ordinary people, people who run businesses, farmers, etc., would suffer consequences.

Mr. O'Connor mentioned the speech of President Obama. I do not agree with everything Mr. Netanyahu stated in his speech, but it was a move in the right direction. He made some positive statements. He set out his position but then he stated, "Let's begin negotiations .... without preconditions." That, to me, is a positive step. He mentioned the two states. I would have considerable differences with him. I would have liked to have seen a different outcome in the elections, but I could see that there was progress in the speech he made.

On the approach that Obama is taking, he set out positions. He set out what he would require of Israel, that it would halt the settlements and that it would recognise the Palestinian right to statehood. On the other hand, he spoke of the need to stop violence. He stated that if Hamas were to be involved in negotiations, it had to take certain steps.

Obama is taking the approach that was very much taken in our own peace process. One sets out one's positions but one has this idea that one tries to persuade people to the table and that violence is getting everybody nowhere, etc. Obama is trying to be an honest broker. He spoke several times in his speech about the need for everyone involved internationally to speak the truth publicly.

That is the kind of approach with which we are so familiar in the Northern Ireland peace process. There is a process, one comes to the table with no preconditions and all of that kind of stuff. Why would Ireland or the European Union set itself up against the approach that is being taken by Obama, the United States and Senator George Mitchell and take a negative punitive step to achieve its aims when everything Obama is trying to achieve at this moment is positive? Obama is critical of Israel and Hamas. He is saying certain things need to be done but he wants to get the two parties to the table. Why would we take something that goes against that and act negatively against one party to the conflict in a way that has consequences for people and is not about peace making?

Ms Crawley stated she wanted us to take the diplomatic steps IPSC outlines. Those are not diplomatic steps or at least some of them are not. There is nothing wrong with calling for an end to the settlements. I agree with that. However, to call for getting rid of the Euromed agreement is not a diplomatic step by any stretch of the imagination.

Chairman

I call Senator de Búrca and welcome her back from the hustings.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I thank the Chairman.

I read the IPSC's document in advance. The delegation has probably covered the ground that was in its document. In the IPSC's recommendations made in section 4 of the document, it requests that this committee recommends that the Government, first, demand publicly that the Euromed agreement under which Israel has privileged access to the EU market be suspended until Israel complies with international law. Personally, I would have no difficulty in supporting that. It also recommends that the Government veto any proposed upgrade in EU relations with Israel and demand publicly that Israel reverse its settlement construction, illegal occupation and annexation of land in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions, and use its influence in international fora to bring this about. Those are defensible.

However, the final recommendation, that the European Union re-engage with Hamas as the political party elected by the Palestinian people, is more problematic. I can only see that happening as part of a process which clearly sets out to achieve a comprehensive settlement or agreement. Therefore, while I would be slow to sign up to the fourth recommendation, I have no difficulty with the first three.

This committee must examine what instruments are available to the European Union to exert influence in this area. We are all aware that its external relations mechanisms and the instruments available to it in terms of external policy are limited. The debate on the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty will be about strengthening and consolidating the Union's ability to act on the international stage, with a particular focus on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. What is available to it currently are its neighbourhood policy and trade policy. Anybody who has followed the development of its trade policy will be frustrated that even though many of the trade and association agreements entered into contain clear clauses setting out certain obligations, these clauses are sometimes not upheld.

In the case of the Euromed agreement, an essential condition is that Israel must demonstrate compliance with international human rights obligations. However, the delegates have set out clearly and systematically in their document the ways in which Israel is in breach of international human rights law. Mr. Morrison pointed out that it is in violation of 25 Security Council resolutions which require action by Israel. It has also failed to implement the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the construction of the wall in the West Bank, notwithstanding the fact that the United Nations General Assembly voted by 150 votes to six calling on Israel to remove the wall. Mr. Morrison referred also to the economic strangulation of Gaza and the continuing closing of crossings. No action has been taken in this regard since the military assault last December. Mr. Morrison pointed out that this is in breach of Articles 33 and 55 of the fourth Geneva Convention. Arising out of the military assault on Gaza at the end of last year, United Nations bodies have recognised evidence of human rights violations and war crimes.

As Mr. Morrison observed, the Euromed agreement has, since 2000, given Israel privileged access to the European Union, which is the destination of one third of Israel's exports. Deputy Tuffy asked whether the European Union should place itself out of line with the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, on this matter. I hope the European Union is not simply a junior partner to the United States, having to trot along faithfully and mirror everything that country does. What Mr. Obama is attempting to do is certainly admirable. Nevertheless, the European Union is in a position to use the independent instruments at its disposal to bring pressure to bear.

If I understood correctly, Deputy Tuffy was making the point that there does not seem to be any more limited option other than a suspension of the trade agreement. That is not a good enough reason to take no action. It is always assumed in any agreement, particularly where conditions are set down, as in this case, in regard to compliance with international human rights law, that there would be a mechanism for suspension and, if necessary, a discontinuation of the agreement. It seems the European Union is in a strong position to exercise that prerogative.

I am pleased for the committee to support the motion. As I said, I do not necessarily support the fourth recommendation, but the first three are acceptable. In particular, we should demand that the Euromed agreement, under which Israel has privileged access to the European Union market, be suspended until Israel complies with international law. That is a perfectly reasonable request.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I support the thrust of what Deputy Tuffy put forward. A suspension of the Euromed trade agreement with Israel would be a retrograde step and I do not believe it would do anything to assist the peace process, particularly with regard to Gaza.

We have lessons to learn from the experience in Northern Ireland. Peace in Northern Ireland is founded upon getting people around the table and creating a positive environment in which they could engage from completely different perspectives. I welcome the statement by Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would not have been my first choice for the job he is in, but his speech last week was a response to the efforts of the US President, Mr. Obama, in recent weeks and months, and is a positive step.

If we look back to the experience of former Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, in Camp David, we will see that although he moved the peace process along when he was in dialogue with the US, the problem was that he failed to bring his political supporters with him, so when he returned to Israel he had lost domestic support. The one person who is in a position to deliver from the Israeli point of view, whether we like it, is Mr. Netanyahu, because he has considerable support behind him. For him to acknowledge that we are looking ultimately at a two-state solution is serious progress. We cannot afford to dismiss this or to adopt a hostile attitude to Israel if we are serious about achieving peace. That is my perspective and I do not support the recommendations that are before the committee today in that regard.

Do the witnesses believe that Hamas is undermining the humanitarian work of the United Nations in Gaza?

Chairman

Before the witnesses reply I will say that I am open-minded on this issue. I have watched the progress, or lack of progress, in that area for the last 35 or 40 years. I have followed the history of that area since I read about David Ben-Gurion many years ago. I would follow the line taken by John Ging in his address at NUI Maynooth and UCD. He had a simple way of looking at things. He said there were faults on both sides and that these issues were fundamental and would not go away. I had a chat with Mr. Ging after the meeting he addressed at Maynooth. What he has to say is useful as he is permanently posted there and so knows what is happening on the ground. He is in a better position than anybody else to comment on these issues, while the rest of us are commenting on them from a distance.

The proposed visit of the committee to the area will be beneficial. We can have all the telephone calls and news broadcasts we like, but one visit on the ground would do much more in terms of impressing the situation on members of the committee. However, Mr. Ging also said something I have said previously, namely, that each side must recognise the other's position in any such situation. In other words, each side must recognise the right of the other to exist, and its existence. If that can be accepted by both sides, we can move on from there. Let us not forget that a Prime Minister of Israel was assassinated in the past, as was a President of Egypt, because of issues directly relating to this conflict. It all boiled down to the fact that neither of them was able to sell an agreement to his own people. That is where it faltered, sadly. History is littered with the political corpses, as well as physical corpses, of the conflict.

It is not at all a simple situation. The blame does not lie fully with either side. An urgent reappraisal of positions is required on both sides who must acknowledge the other exists and make an effort to address the issues. My views may be simple and homespun but they coincide with those of someone who has been to the region.

Ms Marie Crawley

I will respond to some of the questions on our organisation and the wall. The remaining questions can be categorised roughly as either related to the Euromed agreement or the internal political relations of Hamas. Mr. Morrison will answer questions on the agreement, while Mr. O'Connor will answer questions on Hamas.

The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a cross-party organisation representing a broad section of Irish society. We have hundreds of members and a supporters' database with more than 4,000 entries. Our income is derived exclusively from voluntary donations of members and the bulk of our work is done in a voluntary capacity.

As members who have spent time in Palestine will be aware, the wall has a devastating effect on people in the West Bank. It denies them access to education, hospital services and doctors, divides communities, towns, villages and families and essentially cripples life in the West Bank, economically, social and culturally. Women and babies have died in childbirth at checkpoints at the wall. The major issue is not that it is an international boundary between the land of Palestine and Israel but that, when completed, the construction of the wall, combined with the settlement programme and settlement roads, will result in the annexation of 40% of the West Bank. That is not an international boundary but the annexation of the land of another people.

Deputy Tuffy referred to the reason Israel constructed the wall. While it was constructed under the auspices of security considerations, repressive measures such as those I have outlined in terms of the effects of the wall, do not build security. Walls do not make peace. If Israel wants security, it needs to give rights to the people of Palestine, end the occupation, honour United Nations resolutions and honour commitments under international law. If it grants rights to the people of Palestine, security will no longer be an issue. The wall or any number of repressive measures will not give Israel security.

Mr. David Morrison

On the statement made by Prime Minister Netanyahu about a week ago, as Deputy Tuffy stated, the Prime Minister's remarks were in response to President Obama's demand that, prior to the commencement of negotiations, both sides must commit themselves to an independent, viable Palestinian state. Deputy Tuffy indicated that Prime Minister Netanyahu began by stating negotiations should begin without preconditions. As far as I recall, in making that statement he also laid down preconditions, primarily that there should never be a Palestinian state.

While a Palestinian entity with a flag may emerge, Israel will control it. The Prime Minister made clear that any such entity would not have an army or control its own airspace or boundaries. Not by any stretch of the imagination would such an entity amount to what is required by the roadmap, namely, an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state. I assume the Government agrees with the roadmap. Clearly, the European Union agrees with it, as it pointed out about a week ago. The EU also agreed that settlement building should stop completely but Netanyahu will not agree to that either.

As matters stand, the preconditions laid down in the roadmap are not being satisfied by Israel and there is little chance Israel will satisfy them unless further pressure is applied. If the European Union is intent on progressing this settlement — I note it stated last week that it was in European interests that it be brought about — it will have to find some way of applying pressure on Israel. It is in a powerful position to do so because Israel has been granted special privilege status with the Union which is the destination of one third of its exports. One way of doing this would be by following up on what the committee did in January, namely, initiating a formal inquiry into whether Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the Euromed agreement. There would be nothing unreasonable about this. Almost everybody in the room would agree there is at least a substantial question mark against whether Israel is in breach of Article 2. I cannot believe that state, the Prime Minister of which deliberately discriminates against the Arab minority, is adhering to the human rights obligations of the Euromed agreement. It is absurd to say it is doing so. It is perfectly reasonable to insist that it do so and that, if it does not, that something be done about it. One can argue about whether one could formally suspend the agreement which could be ceased until such time as Israel fulfilled its obligations under it.

Deputy Timmins asked about the current position on the use of rockets and the ceasefire. There was a ceasefire from 19 June until 3 November 2008. During that time Hamas fired no rockets. Israel made a deal with Hamas which proved it could honour any deals made with it. However, Israel did not honour all of its obligations under the agreement; in particular, it did not lift the siege. While it did, up to 4 November, honour other aspects of the agreement, namely, that it would not engage in armed incursions into Gaza, on that date, when the world was watching the election of Barack Obama, it engaged in an incursion which it did not need to make because it could have defended Israeli territory against any possible Hamas incursion.

During the ceasefire rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into Israel declined by 98%. People in Sderot were rejoicing. It is stated in official Israeli documents that following the incursion by Israel, Hamas retaliated and rocket firing from Gaza began again and continued until the terrible events that began on 27 December. There has been no formal ceasefire since. Rocket and mortar fire from Gaza continues sporadically. Up until a couple of months ago rocket and mortar fire from Gaza was much more intense than it was during the ceasefire. All Israel had to do, had it been intent on protecting the people of the western Negev and Sderot from rocket and mortar fire, was maintain the arrangements it had come to with Hamas in June last year, but it did not do so. While one can speculate on the reasons, it was not necessary for 1,400 people to be killed in Gaza to protect Israeli civilians in the western Negev.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

We welcome the statement made by the Chairman that a delegation from the committee will visit Gaza in the next few months. As the Chairman stated, it is only by engaging and learning the facts on the ground that one will get a true picture of the situation.

I would like to address the point made by Deputies Creighton and Tuffy that one would only do harm by suspending or ceasing operation of the agreement until its various clauses had been implemented. I presume they were referring to humanitarian law and democratic norms, to which they both adhere. The fact is the agreement was not suspended and, as far as the European Union is concerned, Israel realised it could act with total impunity in how it decided to punish its captive population. It has carried on in that manner.

Events in Gaza in December and January led not just to the deaths of 1,400 people, itself an enormity, but also the destruction of infrastructure and the brutalisation of the people. This happened because Israel could see the European Union would not give a damn, that it would continue its trade relations. It knew that clauses about international humanitarian law were window dressing. If the European Union had exercised its influence at that stage, stating these activities were in breach of international law, making nonsense of the trade agreement, and could not be allowed to happen, it would have had an impact on Israel's behaviour at the time.

Hamas is always raised as a bugbear. I understand people's grave problems with Hamas, but it is only the latest reason not to engage with the Palestinians. We have no links with any particular party — politics inside the Palestinian community are an issue for the community, the IPSC does not get involved in these issues — but we do get involved where parties are being used as a reason for engaging in military activity or refusing to engage with the Palestinian leadership. Not only have unreachable conditions been laid down for engagement with Hamas by Mr. Netanyahu, the same conditions have been laid down for the PLO in general. It is not enough to recognise Israel, it must be recognised as a Jewish state, meaning that it can never be a state that involves others. The bar is always being raised. It is like the pizza analogy about which we heard: all day we try to decide what share of the pizza each will get while one side is eating away at it. This is the position in Palestine.

Hamas had a charter in the 1980s that called for the elimination of Israel, but even the leading elected politician of Hamas in the Occupied Territories, Mr. Haniyeh, has stated it is a declaratory position from 25 years ago to which Hamas is not bound. It is similar to the evolution of Sinn Féin and the IRA in the North when the opportunity for engagement arose. People in this room should remember engaging with that process. We see the steps being taken by the leadership of Hamas, saying it would accept a political outcome involving the 1967 borders and the maintenance of a permanent truce with Israel. We must engage on that basis because refusal to engage with Hamas is used as an excuse not to engage with the Palestinian side and to engage in the mass murder we saw in January. I am shocked people are still finding excuses for this.

The Euro-Mediterranean agreement must be actively renewed every couple of years. Perhaps 1,400 Palestinians do not matter; perhaps the basis of this attitude is that it would be undiplomatic to raise such issues. Deputy Creighton has said we cannot afford to take a hostile attitude to Israel because it would undermine work being done, particularly in the context of what is happening in Gaza. If the European Union had stood up to its alleged humanitarian and democratic principles at the time of the onslaught in December-January, or even before that during the strangulation and siege of Gaza that had been going on for two years previously, maybe what would be going on there would be different.

We very much welcome the Obama initiative. It is such a major step forward compared with the position of the previous US regime. We are not standing up stating that Obama has come out with the solution and we all should now row in behind him. I am delighted that the Government has been supportive of the American initiative. We all are also delighted that the people assigned are those such as Senator George Mitchell and former President Carter, not the Israeli lobby in the United States that has a stranglehold on current American policy. Of course, these are all progressive developments.

However, we must stand our ground as an EU member state and defend the honour of the State in the EU. When it comes to the Euromed agreement, and on stating we cannot be undiplomatic and upset the aggressor in a particular situation by raising awkward questions about its behaviour under international democratic humanitarian norms, it behoves the EU to stand its ground. Particularly when one considers the recent history of this continent, it behoves the EU to stand by such norms given the massacre of imprisoned populations and the economic destruction of occupied peoples. It behoves Europe, given its history, to stand by the commitments it makes on upholding international law.

Ms Marie Crawley

May I make a clarifying comment?

Chairman

Yes.

Ms Marie Crawley

Implicit in some of the comments of the members was the fact that there is perhaps the need for a balanced approach to Palestine and Israel. Balance is not always appropriate. In this case there is the occupier and the occupied. There is a nation which has the fourth most powerful army in the world and one of the most oppressed peoples in the world, and they cannot appropriately be treated equally.

The Israeli Professor Ilan Pappé addressed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier this year and he addressed that particular question. He strongly made the point that to address Palestine and Israel as though they were the same and to approach it as though there is balance is, in effect, to side with Israel. He strongly made the point that the Government should not do that, that sometimes it must declare when there is right and when there is wrong, and that the Government must move from this approach of this being a balanced situation to naming the fact that there is a repressed and an occupied people.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I assure the IPSC that when the Friends of Israel or whatever groups come in as part of this discussion, they will be questioned as thoroughly as the IPSC has been. They ought not take it as a reflection that we are coming down on one side or the other, but there is an obligation on us as committee members to tease matters out.

One question I did not get an answer to was whether President Abbas has been to Gaza since the conflict and, if not, why. It is not unreasonable for committee members to seek the view of the IPSC on Hamas and we have not received that. I cannot recall anyone here stating the existence of Hamas as a reason for not entering into discussions with the Palestinian people. I do not recall here at this committee making excuses for the killing of over 1,400 people in Gaza, which was outrageous.

However, it is important that we would know the IPSC view on Hamas, separate from talks, conditions or whatever. Does the IPSC see Hamas as a terrorist group or as a legitimate political party? That is all. It is a simple question.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I wish to make a point similar to that made by Deputy Timmins. I certainly would not make excuses for the conflict in Gaza. I would be on record as condemning it. It was wrong. I was appalled by it.

On the point Ms Crawley made, when people say one should adopt a balanced approach or be an honest broker, that does not mean that one is saying both sides are the same or that the suffering on both sides is the same. Nobody thinks that in the North everybody was equally guilty or everybody suffered the same. If one accepts a peace process, it involves going to the table irrespective of all of that. If one is an honest broker, there is a moment when that must be put aside in terms of the negotiations. However, this does not mean one cannot be critical of particular actions. To clarify, I absolutely condemn the Israeli actions in Gaza last Christmas.

Mr. Netanyahu's speech, as referred to by Mr. Morrison, included some assertions with which I do not agree. However, it is important to note his willingness to countenance the immediate commencement of negotiations without preconditions. In other words, the other points he made cannot be seen as preconditions. It is there in black and white that he has offered negotiations without preconditions. I am sure the Palestinians will also set out their position. Ultimately, however, negotiations are exactly what the name suggests. We all know from our experience in Northern Ireland that it is amazing what concessions can be made on either side and how people can prove willing to move from seemingly fixed positions.

I am not aware that the Palestinians themselves have sought the cessation of the Euromed agreement. Will the delegates confirm whether this is so? One could argue that human rights abuses are taking place in other countries that are part of that agreement. I recognise there are differences of scale and I do not seek in any way to condone any particular actions. However, there is no resurrecting the agreement if it is ended; it would have to be started again from scratch. That would mean we are essentially using a sanction in order to encourage people to enter into negotiations. In other words, we would be imposing preconditions in regard to issues that will be under discussion as part of a peace process. It goes against much of what the delegates have said to argue that the solution is to end the agreement. Are the delegates saying the Palestinian representatives want the agreement brought to an end? I have never heard them express that preference.

In regard to Hamas, Mr. Obama made clear in his speech that it must put an end to violence, recognise past agreements and recognise Israel's right to exist. Mr. George Mitchell has said something similar. My understanding is that the Israeli Government has not taken a position against that. I may be wrong but I do not recall any statement where it has said that Hamas could never be a part of negotiations. We are all aware that negotiations are taking place behind the scenes in any case in regard to prisoners and so on. Therefore, everybody seems to be in agreement that if Hamas takes certain actions, it can be part of the negotiations.

However, there can be no ambiguity as to the necessity of those actions being taken. Hamas cannot be invited into talks while continuing to fire rockets at Israel and refusing to recognise it as a state. Entering negotiations involves an acceptance of certain facts and will necessitate a ceasefire. These are the actions Mr. Obama has called for. There is no way we can have dealings with Hamas in any official capacity while it refuses to recognise the Israeli state and accept that the way forward is through negotiations and a peace process. That goes without saying. I am sure the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is in agreement in this regard. If we are in any way wishy washy about Hamas, we will succeed only in undermining moderates such as Mahmoud Abbas who have put their lives at risk trying to promote a peace process in Palestine. If Hamas is to be involved in negotiations, it must take certain actions that bring it in line with President Abbas and other moderate voices.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I welcome Mr. Morrison's suggestion that one of the actions we can take is to call, as we did some months ago, for an inquiry as to whether Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the Euromed agreement. I recognise that the delegates from the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign were eager to put their case to us. The inclusion of other matters, including the recognition of Hamas, has clouded the issue somewhat for the committee. As a European affairs committee, do we have an issue with the fact that the European Union has continued to give privileged access to a country that has signed up to a trade agreement with it but which is clearly in breach of what the Union describes as an essential clause of the agreement? In addition, the Union is considering upgrading its relations with Israel. Do we have a difficulty with this?

I am not talking just about this case; I have also raised the issue of Colombia at this committee. As we speak, the European Union is in the process of agreeing a free trade agreement with that country, disregarding its human rights record. No doubt that free trade agreement will have conditions setting down the essential importance of living up to international human rights law, but what if Colombia fails to comply with this, as it is extremely likely to do? As a European affairs committee which is supposed to be scrutinising EU legislation, compliance with international law and so on, are we happy that this is the European Union's practice? If so, we might as well dispense with these clauses in trade agreements. Let us have agreements that are purely about trade and stop the window dressing, as it has been described, in which we pretend the Union is concerned not only about its economic interests but also about the maintenance and promotion of international and human rights law.

The request that an inquiry into Israel's compliance with Article 2 of the Euromed agreement be examined is surely one we could consider supporting. This should be done as quickly as possible because, unfortunately, if it takes a long time, it could be used to put off further action. It would be helpful to set a timeframe in which this should occur.

Chairman

The debate illustrates the complexity of the situation. We said at the beginning that this was not a simple issue. If it were, we would not be here talking about it as it would have been resolved many years ago.

The analogy with Northern Ireland is interesting. An analogy can also be drawn with the western Balkans. The situation is similar in that we have a combination of history, prejudice, religion, tradition and politics. This is a concoction that makes for a deadly time bomb with a propensity to explode at intervals as time passes.

The point about an agreement is that if one is reached — any agreement — there will be things that are objectionable from the point of view of both sides. That is in the nature of all agreements, including the Good Friday Agreement. There are issues to which each side will fundamentally object, but the experience has been that this has harnessed opposition and brought the two sides together under a common cause in order that they can tolerate each other's existence, as opposed to recognising it. The problem has not been solved; it is still continuing and requires much attention. It has not been put to bed.

The interesting point about the United Nations is that if it had stood up, things might have been different. If it had stood up in Bosnia, things might have been different there also, but it was not in a position to do so. It was not capable of doing so and it did not happen. As a result, thousands were slaughtered over a period of years. Many have now forgotten about this. We all looked at it on our televisions every night and said how awful and terrible it was. These things happened and they continued to happen, despite the wailings, as I see it, of the international community. Nothing happened until serious action was taken, although I am not suggesting that is a way out of it either.

The problem we are discussing has continued and will continue unless some agreement is worked out, to which people will stick. There are always options: people can either live together or die together. It is a stark choice but, unfortunately, that is the way it works.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

I note a difference in approach in this respect. Was the European Union being undiplomatic when it immediately suspended its association agreement with Russia when the latter invaded Georgia last August? It is a case of double standards.

It is interesting that the Chairman raised the issue of Bosnia and Croatia. It is precisely because of the activities of Croatia that its accession process has been held up for ten years. The European Union takes action when it sees fit and where it does not have a special, partisan involvement.

On the question of people choosing to live together, Palestinian people in villages on the West Bank do not have the option of living peacefully side by side with their Israeli neighbours. It would be terrific if such an option were to become available. The IPSC supports the peace process, provided it is on the basis of recognising both peoples.

Chairman

Others do not entirely agree with that view and have stated people on the ground on both sides are willing to recognise the other side's position, but decisions are taken over their heads and aerial activity continues regardless.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

Aerial activity is one-sided in the region. I assure Deputy Timmins that the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign has complete respect for the joint committee, its members and the process by which it engages with delegations appearing before it. We are grateful for the opportunity to address the joint committee.

I return to the issue of Hamas. The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign does not get involved in the internal politics of the Palestinian community. To respond to Deputy Tuffy, Hamas is the only party in the process which must meet preconditions, notwithstanding the fact that there are no preconditions. What about the racist party in Israel headed by Avigdor Lieberman which does not accept the right of the Palestinians to exist as a people, let alone anything else? Last year one of its leading members described Palestinians as "cockroaches". Perhaps we could discuss issues of that nature.

Unlike Bosnia, Northern Ireland and other places with hundreds of years of history, the problem in Palestine and Israel is a recent one which can be largely traced to the crimes committed by Europeans against Jewish people in Europe during the Second World War. While demanding recognition of Israel may sound easy, it means asking a previous generation of people who lost everything to recognise those who dispossessed them. This is a difficult issue, one that is not as simple as it appears. One must recognise the pathway for Palestinians to be able to arrive at a position of being able to accept and recognise Israel. One cannot simply ask why they do not accept the right of Israel to exist. The events with which we are dealing occurred in the previous generation when hundreds of thousands were dispossessed of everything they had and now live in horrible conditions in camps.

Chairman

I must interrupt again. One of the things I have learned from all such circumstances is that once one starts to live in the past, one is not dealing with the de facto situation. One can debate the past, however bitter it was, for as long as one likes, but unless one addresses current issues, one will not emerge from the past and agreement becomes impossible.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

I agree. It is unfortunate that Deputy Timmins has left the meeting.

I propose to make a final point. Under international law, one has the right to take up arms against an illegal occupation. While one may not like it — perhaps the French Resistance was a bunch of terrorists who should not have done what they did — there is this right. Under international law, the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is illegal and the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council have repeatedly called for it to end.

The difficulty is that an abnormal problem, a war, needs to be solved. Previously, the Palestine Liberation Organisation or Fatah engaged in armed insurrection and achieved some level of agreement which enabled them to cease armed activity. Hamas entered the scene as an armed insurrection and is now party to a ceasefire. As Mr. Morrison outlined, Hamas has shown it is capable of adhering to a ceasefire. People slammed as being illegally occupied have under international law a right to armed resistance, a right which the French Resistance took up during the Second World War and availed of by other resistance movements. I do not believe there would be many takers for a denunciation of the French Resistance for doing what it did.

It is important that conditions for peaceful alternatives are created, which is what President Obama is moving towards. I agree that the statement from Mr. Netanyahu came as a result of American pressure. The conditions set out for a party on the Palestinian side — Hamas — should also be applied to Ms Livni's party, which does not accept the right of the Palestinians to be a separate state. Recognition was referred to. Mr. Netanyahu's party does not accept that there exists a Palestinian nation.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

President Obama did make it a condition that the Israelis must recognise the Palestinians' right to a separate state, although he may have made the point in a broad way.

Chairman

I should mention there were other developments during the Second World War, which we do not have the time to go into now, that when revisited by historians might be rewritten.

Senator John Hanafin

I have listened carefully to the debate. If one can get over the fundamental issue of Israel's right to exist, the current situation is similar to the one which prevailed in the North in respect of which a deal had to be done with Dr. Paisley. Dr. Paisley was told that if he did not accept the deal set out before him he would have to accept another which he may not like, namely, the taking of the Unionists veto. He opted at that time for what be believed to be the lesser of two evils. While neither deal was evil, that is the way he saw it.

There is no doubt that there is history on both sides and not only recent history. In regard to Israel, this goes back to biblical times and the rights of Jews to be in Israel. The Palestinians also have rights. Neither country has an exclusive right to the history of the land. I would suggest that the only way forward is to offer a guarantee to Israel which has been the subject of terrorist attacks in 1948, 1967 and 1973 and since then. I accept that there have been reprisals that have been hugely disproportionate. I do not believe either side will like my views. The treatment of Palestinians has not been in accordance with the UN resolutions and neither has the treatment of the Israeli state with proxy wars being waged by Iran through Hamas. They are a constant security threat. Israel has a right to thrive and survive just as Palestine does. The favoured nation status should be extended to the Palestinian areas to enable goods and materials from the West Bank and Gaza to be exported to Europe at a preferential rate, thus enriching the people from those areas. Rather than taking something from Israel it would be much more productive to seek favoured nation status for the West Bank and Gaza. This must start with Israel's right to exist.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I apologise for my late arrival to the meeting. I am anxious to learn more about this difficult situation which will not be easily resolved. I believe the more we can listen the more we will learn. I thank the group for attending.

Ms Marie Crawley

I would like to return to an important point made by Deputy Tuffy in regard to whether the Palestinian people support our position on the suspension of the Euromed agreement. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they do. Obviously all of the positions that we adopt within the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign are informed by the positions of Palestinian people, in particular the NGO sector within Palestine with whom we have ongoing contact. Not only do those organisations within Palestine support our position, they implore us to use whatever influence we have to lobby our own Government to use its influence within the European Union for that suspension. This is absolutely a reflection of the position of the Palestinian people.

I thank the members of the committee and the Chairman for the invitation to us and the time they have given to us to deliver our presentation. We very much appreciate it.

Chairman

We thank the group for its submissions. It was fortunate we only had one delegation today, some days there are three or four delegations, which can telescope the debate. The information we got today was very important. When committee members visit the area, they will be in a better position to make a contribution afterwards and I hope, in some small way, to do something to bring the situation under control.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.35 p.m. and adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 June 2009.