JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 16 Jul 2009

EU Association Agreement with Israel and Related Matters: Discussion with Amnesty International Ireland.

Chairman

I welcome Ms Noeleen Hartigan, programme director, Mr. David White, activist co-ordinator and Ms Éilís Ní Chaithnia, campaigns officer, Amnesty International Ireland. I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the 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.

It is usual that a delegation makes an opening presentation and then members are given an opportunity to pose questions. The delegation can share its presentation.

Senator John Hanafin

I must leave for a short while but I will try to return and read the transcript of Amnesty International's report. I congratulate the organisation on the great work it has done internationally in helping prisoners of conscience, highlighting matters and taking up the worst and most difficult cases. Unfortunately, it has hugely undermined its case by promoting abortion. It detracts from all its good work. I ask the organisation to consider seriously its Irish role in supporting and promoting international abortion.

Ms Noeleen Hartigan

I will respond to Senator Hanafin's comments briefly at the end of our presentation. Let us stick to the substantive matter, that is, the situation in Gaza and Amnesty International's report. We are very pleased to be here in response to the committee's motion on whether Article 2 of the association agreement had been breached. At its simplest, that is a mooted or theoretical question because Article 2 of the association agreement is not particularly strong. We will keep our presentation brief because I am aware that the committee has received a lot of material from us. Our recommendation, which we will reiterate throughout the afternoon, is that this committee, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, strengthen the EU's role in upholding human rights standards in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories by strengthening the action plan which is appended to the association agreement. We have the association agreement and Article 2 which refers to human rights, but we have very little else by way of meaningful mechanisms to enforce that. The motion, with all respect, is moot in that this agreement is not strong enough. We will make specific recommendations to the committee. I will leave papers with the secretariat as to what the action plan should contain to make those standards strong. The EU action plan with Palestine is much more detailed than the one with Israel while the EU action plan with Morocco is much more detailed than the one we have with Israel at present.

Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people, mainly volunteers. Many members are present. Our job is to uphold international human rights law, no more and no less. In situations like the conflict between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, we toe a very careful and steady line. The report which the joint committee most recently received was on the basis of four Amnesty member's reports. One is Irish and used to work in the Irish section. Just before the conflict ended, they went into Gaza in the back of an ambulance. Everything reported is first hand evidence from them. We are very careful in the line we toe on this issue. In our recent findings there were war crimes on both sides. Israel is, undoubtedly, responsible for war crimes, as is Hamas. However, the context of what we are presenting today is what this committee can effectively do, within its role of influencing the EU action plan, to hold both Israel and the EU to a higher human rights standard, because it is a bilateral agreement.

I will hand over to my two colleagues, who will speak on specific aspects of our report. Eilís Ní Chaithnía will speak about the recent report, which members have received, on the conflict between Israel and Gaza in December and January. This is the most comprehensive report issued to date. David White will then cover some of our other human rights concerns in the territories. I hope what they say will reinforce the point that we need a stronger human rights mechanism between the EU and Israel. I also welcome our colleagues from the Israeli embassy. Our job is, not only to do research but to engage in honest, open and frank dialogue with people. We have an ongoing relationship with the Israeli embassy. It is great to see them here this afternoon.

Ms Eilís Ní Chaithnía

The Gaza report is important in relation to the committee's motion because it speaks to the international community's obligation to ensure accountability. There must be accountability in the relationship between the EU and Israel and the EU must take up the role of ensuring that accountability is applied to the recent war crimes.

Several weeks prior to Operation Cast Lead, the Israel refused to allow independent observers, journalists, human rights monitors or humanitarian aid workers into Gaza, effectively cutting off Gaza from the outside world. Amnesty International researchers managed to get in just before the conflict ended, the day before the ceasefire was called, in fact. By that stage, 1,400 people had been killed, thousands of civilian homes, businesses and public buildings had been destroyed and in some cases whole neighbourhoods had been razed to the ground and livestock killed. The report contains great detail which is based on the findings of our researchers.

Amnesty International has found that the destruction was wanton and deliberate. It was carried out in a manner which indicated that it could not be justified as militarily necessary. The Israel Government has often used that justification, not only in the recent conflict but with regard to many of the human rights violations which we will cover today. In our opinion, the broad definition of "military or security necessity" not only undermines the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition of destruction of property by an occupying power but also negates the principles of distinction between military objectives and civilian objects. The majority of those killed in Gaza during the conflict were civilians and included 300 children.

Amnesty made the shocking discovery that not only was the destruction reckless and indiscriminate but it was, seemingly, tolerated up the chain of command in the Israel defence forces. Either precision weaponry with exceptional optics and capable of extreme accuracy was used to kill civilians and led to the disproportionate death toll or indiscriminate and imprecise weaponry, such as white phosphorous, was used in the most densely populated area of the world. All of these are violations of Geneva Conventions and of customary international law.

It is most important that these war crimes are addressed and that justice, reparations and truth come through independent investigations. Justice Goldson has been mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate. He is, currently, doing that with his team. We have, consistently, asked that Israel co-operate. Hamas has agreed to co-operate but Israel has not. This is understandable as the original mandate covered only Israeli war crimes but it has been extended to cover all. Therefore, the investigation should be given the co-operation it deserves. The UN board of inquiry said, very specifically, the undisputed cause of death, injuries and damage at the UNRRA building was the firing of mortar rounds by the Israeli defence forces. We welcome the European Council's recent support in the matter of securing co-operation with the investigation and its call for Israel to co-operate.

The humanitarian crisis is spiralling out of control. For more than a year before the conflict, Israel barred all exports so that the economy of Gaza was already devastated. The recent conflict has made that situation much worse. Amnesty is calling for the Israeli Government to lift the restrictions on the movement of goods, persons and humanitarian aid into Gaza. We ask members of the joint committee to bring this recommendation to each forum on which they sit within the EU and to keep the issue on the agenda of any monthly meetings.

Ms Noeleen Hartigan

Ms Ní Chaithnía has given us an overview of the Gaza report, on which we will happily answer questions. David White will now highlight some of our other human rights concerns within the region and our reasons for making our specific recommendations regarding the action plan.

Mr. David White

The continued construction and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank continues to be of serious concern to Amnesty. They are in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel and EU member states are high contracting parties. In the context of international agreements, such as the Quartet Road Map of 2003 and the Annapolis talks of 2007, Israel has given an undertaking to freeze the expansion of settlements and to remove any settler outposts created since 2001. Unfortunately, Israel has failed to deliver on these commitments given to the EU and to other parties. The Israel Government, and the army at the highest levels, continue to sanction settlement activity.

The activity continues today. Israel estimates that approximately 2,500 units are under construction and cannot be stopped. They say they are part of the natural growth of existing settlements. However, they are illegal under international law and Amnesty believes activity should cease immediately.

Amnesty International welcomes the European Union's position on settlements and believes the Union has a critical role in addressing the issue. Even as recently as last month, after the EU-Israel Association Council meeting in Luxembourg, the Union was quite tough in its criticism and concern about settlement activity and again called for the initial freezing of such activity. Amnesty International greatly welcomes this statement. As a means of addressing the issue, a new action plan between the Union and Israel would be an excellent mechanism. We would like to see action points included in the plan calling for a cessation of settlement activities.

The infrastructure supporting the settlements is also highly problematic, specifically the restrictions on movement and the closure regimes on the West Bank. Approximately 550 or 600 closures, road blocks and checkpoints are spread throughout the West Bank which make life extremely difficult for the indigenous Palestinian population. The Israeli authorities contend these checkpoints and road blocks and the infamous fence wall which is being constructed are for the security of its population and that Israel needs to stop militants and arms getting into Israel. It has an obligation to try to stop attacks on its own soil, but it needs to do this along the border, along the green line between the West Bank and Israel, not deep inside the West Bank which is where they tend to be. Amnesty International has documented many cases which show how these movement restrictions have had a damaging impact on the lives of Palestinians, including women giving birth at checkpoints because they were unable to get to hospital or medical facilities in time. Amnesty International has also documented cases where people in ambulances have died at checkpoints because of the delay in getting to proper medical centres in time. If we articulate strong action points in a new action plan agreed with Israel, it will be a mechanism by which we can insist on positive changes being made on the ground which will lead to real improvements in the lives of Palestinians on the West Bank.

Ms Noeleen Hartigan

Amnesty International recognises there have been war crimes on both sides. Today's discussion is about how Senators and Deputies can influence the European Union to hold Israel to account with regard to its action plan and the standards the European Union sets for human rights. The action plan must show commitment on both sides. It is about us holding the European Union to account, as well as the Israelis. It has to be specific, measurable and have a time line. Whether Article 2 has been breached is a moot point because there is not sufficient detail to hold them to account. We need to bring to an end the culture of impunity where we see the sort of human rights violations committed in December and January going undocumented except for NGO research. Thousands of lives have been lost and thousands of families destroyed.

The Irish section of Amnesty International has asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to publicly ask the Israeli ambassador to Ireland to respond to our latest report. We are interested in having an open and honest dialogue, but we would like the Israeli ambassador to respond to Amnesty International's recommendations publicly. I am conscious that my colleagues from the Israeli Embassy are present in the Visitors Gallery. The difference in our line is that Amnesty International does not believe humanitarian and human rights law can be breached under any circumstances. The law is constructed in such a way as to regulate conflicts and wars. We maintain there were breaches on both sides in the recent conflict and that there is an opportunity for the committee to hold Israel to account through the association agreement and specifically the action plan.

Chairman

It is interesting that the first time the ambassador of Israel in Dublin and his Palestinian counterpart sat together was at a meeting of this committee a little over a year ago.

Deputy Timmy Dooley took the Chair.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank Amnesty International for informing the committee about its position on the Palestinian territories and Israel. I note the documentation it has presented to the committee explains the manner in which it proposes to deal with the matter, taking into consideration the organisation's basic tenet which is to uphold human rights law. I was a little surprised to hear the delegates say the association agreement was not moot because it did not provide for a basic human rights mechanism or sanction. However, the very fact that the EuroMed trading agreement, a preferential trading agreement with Israel, is conditional on the non-violation of human rights should be seen as a sanction. If there is an abuse of human rights, the immediate supposition is that the agreement should be examined and dealt with in some fashion to reflect the violation of human rights. It does not seem the agreement allows for what was proposed in 2008, an upgrading of the neighbourhood policy and, therefore, an upgrading of the agreement. It seems to suggest the very minimum would be a downgrading of the agreement which would be an imperative of those who are party to the agreement, a preferential agreement between the European Union and Israel. The Union constitutes Israel's most significant trading bloc. I would have thought, therefore, that any finding that there has been a violation of human rights would have a knock-on effect on the agreement resulting in it being downgraded, suspended or eliminated entirely. I ask Amnesty International to comment on this.

Amnesty International has stated there has been a violation of human rights by Israel and by Hamas. I note that Hamas has been dealt with severely by the European Union in that it has been bypassed by the Union when allocating resources to the Palestinian Territories. However, the Union does not seem to have sanctioned Israel. I ask for the delegation's response because they are the two protagonists in the conflict. It seems Hamas was involved in war crimes and human rights abuses but now seems to be more conciliatory about entering dialogue.

It seems Israel is proceeding willy-nilly along a path towards a single-state solution. The settlements are continuing; the border crossings, checkpoints and restrictions in Gaza are still in place. Everything is as bad as it has ever been and the position has not improved since the ending of the conflict. It seems Mr. Netanyahu is paying lip service to the idea of a two-state solution in order to placate President Obama and give the impression that something is happening when, in fact, the Israelis are doing the exact opposite. There is nothing happening on the ground that indicates it is more than lip service. I am part of a delegation from the committee that will travel to the region next week to learn more about the Israeli position. We will meet representatives of the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to explore both sides. Naturally, we would like to get as much information as possible before we go. We do not want to travel with a preconceived view of what has taken place. I would like to hear the delegation's response to my perception, as I have outlined it.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I am glad to be called to ask some questions before the members of the delegation are invited to respond. I will repeat some of the questions asked by Deputy Costello. It is good to group our questions.

I welcome the representatives of Amnesty International. The Vice Chairman, Deputy Dooley, and I co-sponsored the motion that was passed by the committee on 15 January. I am not sure if any of the three members of the delegation were present on that occasion, but I would like to put the motion in context. The committee decided to embark on the taking of evidence, for want of a better phrase, from interested persons on all sides. I said at the time that I had a completely open mind on the issue of whether there had been a breach of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement of 1995. That continues to be my position. I am not bringing any preconceived ideas or notions to this debate. Some ambassadors have given testimony or evidence at this forum on whether they believe Israel has been in compliance with Article 2 of the agreement. As Deputy Costello said, representatives of the committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will travel to Israel, Gaza and other places next week. I assume they will prepare a report which this committee will be in a position to evaluate for the purposes outlined in the motion we passed on 15 January.

It is not unfair for any member of the committee to ask the three members of the delegation whether, in the words of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement of 1995, "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". The members of the committee and nobody else will decide whether, in the opinion of the committee, Article 2 has been breached. If we decide it has been breached, we will consider the implications that might have for the entire association agreement process. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, made it clear to the Czech Presidency that it could not be business as usual, with regard to the association agreement, in the aftermath of the events in Gaza. I fully endorse that sentiment. I would like to hear the opinion of the delegates, which is as valid as the opinion of others who have studied this issue, on whether they believe the European Union is committed to "respect for human rights and democratic principles". If our guests are prepared to give an opinion on that matter, I would like to hear it. If they believe the Union does not have such a commitment, perhaps they will tell us. In addition, I would like to hear their opinion on whether they believe the state of Israel has respected "human rights and democratic principles". I am phrasing my comments carefully.

The question I have raised is fairly broad-based. I have used the wording in the agreement. It is not unfair of us to ask the various interlocutors who come before us to express their opinions on the matter.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan took the Chair.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I endorse the Chairman's welcome. I further endorse what my colleagues said. The delegates have made a strong case and have used very strong language. We salute the brave people who have visited Gaza and thank them for their work. We also thank the delegates for the report they have given us. They alluded on a number of occasions to their discussions with officials from the Israeli Embassy. During those talks has there been any indication of a change of mindset? Has there been any flexibility in their attitude to trying to resolve this issue, on which we have been working for many years at national and EU levels? Little progress has been achieved, despite the efforts made. If we are to make progress, the only hope we have from a global perspective involves a partnership between the European Union and the United States. Do the delegates take any solace from the strong statement recently made by the US President, Mr. Obama? Do they expect progress to be made as a result of that statement?

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the delegation from Amnesty International and I am happy they are with us today. With Deputy Mulcahy, I instigated the motion mentioned. The European Union has been relatively slow in trying to resolve this and similar problems in other areas of conflict close to the borders of Europe. On far too many occasions we have left it to the United States to achieve some form of resolution. We tabled the motion because we considered it was important for the European Union to review its relationship with Israel and the Palestinian organisations. I suggest the Union should seek to find a peaceful means of forcing Israel to achieve a basic understanding of the requirements of European citizens. The Union should demand of its neighbours a certain level of "respect for human rights". We are exploring this issue in a way that will allow us to make a determination that will inform the Minister and help him to wield Ireland's influence within the Union. I would have thought that the neighbourhood agreement was the best legal mechanism for us to use if we are interested in preparing to resolve the conflict. I hope the delegates can go a little further than saying whether it is a moot point that Israel has breached "human rights and democratic principles" and shown a lack of respect in that regard. I am not trying to demonise Israel's approach. It is clear that our guests do not want to do so either.

We all recognise that there is considerable wrong on both sides. However, Israel continues to rank highly on the world stage, certainly the European stage. It commands the respect of many member states and countries. By contrast, the Palestinian people are often cast aside as being less than an equal participant. For that reason, there should be a greater encumbrance on Israel to show leadership. It is not good enough for the Israeli people or anybody else to equivocate or seem to suggest there is an equality of wrong in this case. I firmly believe we must expect and demand more from Israel as the dominant state — the leader, in terms of recognition — in the region. The European Union needs to establish the basic facts in order that it can follow a particular path. If the European bloc is not prepared to inflict some sanction at that stage, I do not think it will succeed in forcing Israel to make changes. I do not want to single Israel out and have clearly accepted that there is wrong on both sides. However, if the Union is to bring Israel to its senses, as it needs to do, it has a role in examining the agreement in place. Although the delegates talk of an action plan – that is fine and we can look towards it – unfortunately we are not achieving justice in respect of the wrong being done and we are not seeking to address the base from which we are working. As a matter of importance, an island such as Ireland, with all its experience of conflict resolution, should address the wrongs being done and try to build a peaceful solution on that foundation. It is important that we establish in a clinical and forensic way, within the existing legal framework and agreements, a means of making Israel realise it cannot violate basic international law on human rights on the basis of presenting itself as being under threat. One will never succeed in resolving this conflict unless one starts to respect the basic principles of human rights. The debate should focus on Israel in this instance.

The delegates and I have differed over related events, namely, those associated with extraordinary rendition. I have always argued that the focus in this regard needs to be on the perpetrator. The perpetrator in this instance has been and is the Government of the United States. For this reason, although I would be very supportive of much of the action the US Government takes in many areas, I believe one must focus on where the seed is germinated. The seed associated with extraordinary rendition is germinated in Washington. The seed of the problem in the Middle East at present is germinated largely through Israel's lack of basic respect for and understanding of the principles of democracy and human rights that should rightly be applied to the Palestinian people. Until Ireland, as a proud member state of the European Union, flexes its muscles in this regard, Israel will not deal with this matter in the way it should.

I strongly support the approach taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin. He has been to the fore among European colleagues and it is welcome that this committee has adopted a supporting role in that regard. I hope the delegation will go a little further in terms of assisting us in what is a process based on established agreements. In an effort to have a role in effecting a resolution, we should deal with the existing agreements and try to follow the path of recovery for which they allow. This does not take from the fact that we need to more work on the various different action plans that can be built upon in this area.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I welcome the Amnesty International delegates and thank them for their contribution. The submission refers to the Israeli Bedouins in the Negev desert, who are very badly treated. I am sure the committee will have before it the Israeli ambassador or others to deal with the various issues that have been raised.

Amnesty International states it is not in a position to adjudicate on a breach of Article 2. Is that correct? Will the delegates elaborate on this? It surprises me to some extent. Who would be in a position to adjudicate on the matter? While it is outside the remit of the motion, can the delegates state from experience, based on the relevant criteria, whether there are many other agreements that could be subject to the same scrutiny as the one in question? In this regard, consider the treatment of the Uyghurs and the Tibetans? Is there capacity to look beyond the remit of the motion?

Senator Terry Leyden

I will not repeat the comments already made, save to say I welcome the delegation and thank it for its detailed and comprehensive report. It is tragic that 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including some 300 children and hundreds of unarmed citizens. The conflict was totally unnecessary and an atrocity. I cannot understand how Israel, given how much its people suffered, could inflict such pain and suffering on the people of Gaza. It is beyond comprehension that a country that is surviving and progressing very well could do so. There is no doubt but that there was provocation but it was very minor compared with the response to the rocket attacks, which was excessive.

It is about time Hamas copped on and recognised the state of Israel once and for all. Its failure to do so is a nonsense. Israel has an absolute right to exist, as does Palestine. The ultimate solution in the region is to have the two adjoining states working together. Hamas is not serving its people well with its activities on the ground in Gaza. Firing rockets at civilian areas in Israel is provocative and unnecessary. The kidnapping of a soldier provoked a major reaction. The activities undertaken by Hamas are unwise, to say the least. It will have to recognise Israel. I have no difficulty with the necessity to deal with Hamas. I do not know the arrangement for next week involving members of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and European Affairs but I hope contact will be made with responsible leadership in the Hamas organisation to bring it into the circle and get it involved.

The European Union has a very important role in the development, reconstruction and promotion of human rights in the region but it is not playing it. This is why, under the Lisbon treaty, if accepted, the new high representative will have authority to become involved, go to the region and work with Senator George Mitchell, Mr. Tony Blair and others. The Union is not playing the role it should be playing at present. The motion we passed last year is very worthwhile. I recommend to the secretariat that the newly elected Members of the European Parliament push this motion in that Parliament to bring about a discussion in this regard.

I have no great hope for a solution regarding trade. There are 27 member states and all are engaged in separate trade negotiations with Israel. Ireland and Israel have excellent trade relations and these are continuing, irrespective of the conflicts. There is a balance of payments in favour of Ireland. I do not have much hope for considerable renegotiation of the agreement because the 26 other member states are also selling their products in the region.

I note Amnesty International's point on the extension of the settlements. There is very little control in that regard. When I was in Hebron, for instance, the mosque there was surrounded by settlers. Residents have been moved out, as far as I know. Circumstances in Gaza are outrageous. The boat that approached Gaza recently on a humanitarian mission was held very unfairly in international waters by the Israelis. I commend those who went to the region with assistance.

I wish the delegation every success next week and hope we will have its report as soon as possible after its return from the fact-finding mission to Gaza and the West Bank.

Chairman

It goes without saying that this committee has been very exercised in this area since the Israeli initiatives — for want of a better description — earlier in the year. Committee members were very concerned about what are regarded as human rights abuses and recognise there are excesses on both sides. We have been talking about this issue for a long time. It would appear neither side recognises the other's existence or their right to exist. Unfortunately, coming from that premise, it does not make for ready negotiation or for the alleviation of the difficulties that have arisen. It would also appear that when in close discussions each side reverts to what happened in the past. As we know in this country from our experience, reference to the past is not necessarily in anyone's best interest.

Since the motion was passed on 15 January, the committee has sought a meeting with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy and the UN High Commissioner in Geneva. Due to local authority and European elections, it has been difficult to arrange these meetings.

I acknowledge the work by Amnesty International in the area of human rights. All members have had good reason to call upon the organisation from time to time. It is the nature of its business that Amnesty's reports can either be welcomed or dismissed depending on, of course, to whom they are addressed. Suffice to say, abuses of human rights must be taken seriously. Whatever the causes, they must be investigated. We hope the delegation going there next week will have first-hand experience and be able to relate to the people it meets on the ground.

Ms Noeleen Hartigan

I will attempt to respond to the queries raised by Deputies Costello, Mulcahy, Timmins, Dooley, Senator Leyden and to the Chairman's helpful conclusion. Nothing compares to direct human experience and Amnesty International would be delighted to offer any briefings to any of the committee's delegation going to Israel and the Occupied Territories next week. We would also be able to put delegates in contact with local human rights activists on both sides of the territories. We can also assist in any debriefings when the delegation returns.

I want to be clear about Amnesty's position. We welcome the posing of the question by the committee on whether Article 2 has been breached. In 2000, since the association agreement came in, the human rights situation in Gaza has deteriorated substantially. Since the conflict between southern Israel and Gaza, we have seen 1,400 people killed, war crimes on both sides, disproportionate and indiscriminate violations by the Israeli authorities and a continuing humanitarian crisis.

Amnesty International cannot adjudicate on Article 2. That is for the political process. We need to keep our comments to what exists under human rights law. There is no doubt, however, of human rights violations occurring in Israel and Gaza by the Israelis. There is no doubt the Israeli authorities have been responsible for war crimes. There is no doubt there is a culture of impunity when it comes to Israel. There is a 107-page report on this.

I mean no disrespect when I say the question on whether Article 2 has been breached is a political one. However, if Amnesty were asked has Israel contravened the Geneva Convention, we would say "Yes". The same answer would apply to the convention on the prevention of torture. If we were asked has Israel been responsible for war crimes as far back as 2000, when it deliberately bombed water supplies into Gaza, we would say, "Yes".

This is the undisputable evidence we are presenting. What are we, as citizens of Europe, going to do about this to make the association agreement strong? We would not adjudicate on it because it is a line of text that does not have the sufficient data to hold them to account. Whether the Government chooses to degrade the trading status is a political judgment for the Government. It is not within the gift of Amnesty International to adjudicate on this.

One can imagine the situations in which we find ourselves. One of the delegates on our recent mission to Gaza is Brian Dooley. For him to stand with any authority in front of either the Israeli authorities or Hamas, we need to stick to the rule of international law. There is no question in our mind that Israel has been responsible for violations of humanitarian and international law.

Neither will Amnesty make an adjudication on the two-state solution and President Obama's direction. Amnesty only talks about the violation of human rights law. Amnesty does not have Dáil privilege, as the Chairman pointed out earlier. Even if we did have political comments to make in a private capacity, we would not be making them here.

In any human rights situation, there is no real substitute for the personal experience. We have been highly critical of Hamas, not only for the war crimes inflicted on the people of Israel but also for how it and other Palestinian armed groups have treated women. In some cases, women have been flogged for walking down a street with a man, people have been held illegally and tortured. I have not been in Israel. However, David White and the team that wrote this report have been to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories many times. I wish the delegation well with its mission.

Chairman

Ms Hartigan's response has been comprehensive and recognised the difficulties in the region. The committee will use the report as a reference. I thank Amnesty for attending today. The committee's delegation will have concluded its work by this time next week.

Ms Noeleen Hartigan

Thank you. There are some final points to put on the record. I thank the committee for its time today. I am aware that the Houses of the Oireachtas are not in session. An bord snip nua is reporting today and there are many crises in human rights in health and housing that all committee members will want to address in their constituencies and as the elected representatives of the citizens of Ireland.

On Deputy Dooley's comments, I am conscious he is sitting next to Deputy O'Rourke. We have both fought in public on television. I was wearing the same frock as I am today on one of those occasions, which is mortifying, not that she would remember.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

It shows that Ms Hartigan lives her life in a good economic fashion.

Ms Noeleen Hartigan

Yes, that is correct.

Amnesty International has welcomed and applauded the position taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the recent conflict in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We welcome that the Cabinet sub-committee on international human rights has agreed to examine Amnesty's report on rendition. It provides a comprehensive to-do list. If the Government wants to say we are no longer complicit, it can use this list and we will continue to work with it in that regard.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Ms Hartigan and I will argue as to whether we were ever complicit.

Ms Noeleen Hartigan

Indeed but we are in this together for a better future for Ireland. We welcome the Government's offer of a resettlement opportunity for two innocent Uzbek nationals currently incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay.

I had not intended to end on this note but to get it on the record of the Oireachtas — I thank Senator Hanafin for his comments, earlier — I should like to clarify that Amnesty International's position in relation to abortion is to the effect that we interpret human rights, while not going above or beyond that. As members of the committee are aware, there is no human right to safe and legal abortion. We are basing our position on the judgments that have been made with regard to allowing women access to safe and legal abortion in circumstances where their life or health has been threatened, or where they have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. The position developed by Amnesty International, which involved a debate over about eight years, came about mainly in response to the gender based violence that is rampant in Darfur.

Interestingly, the membership within the Irish section has not prioritised campaigning on this issue and we shall be seeing many other reports about death due to unsafe abortion from Amnesty, the first of which will in Paraguay in a couple of weeks — for those who are interested. I thank the Senator for raising the question and for giving us the opportunity to clarify our position.

Chairman

Again, I thank the witnesses.