JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN UNION AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 22 Sep 2011

Situation in Middle East: Discussion with Breaking the Silence

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Mr. Noam Chayut, a founder member of the Israeli non-governmental organisation Breaking the Silence. He is accompanied by Mr. Sorley McCaughey from Christian Aid and Ms Eilish Ní Riain from Trócaire.

Before we begin, I remind everybody of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Mr. Noam Chayut

I thank the joint committee for inviting me and giving of its precious time to discuss this issue. I represent the organisation Breaking the Silence and thank Christian Aid and Trócaire for arranging this meeting and their support on the tour and back home.

I served in the Israeli army for five years until 2003. I spent three of those years as an officer in the Palestinian territories, including Gaza and the West Bank. I joined Breaking the Silence in 2004. For the past seven years we have been collecting testimonies from comrades and soldiers who served in almost all of the units of the army which control Palestinian civil society. We have released several reports so far, but this is the first time we have added a short analysis of the testimonies which are included in the book, copies of which I am presenting to the committee. It is more than 450 pages long, but fewer than 20 contain our analysis and view of the military occupation in the past ten years. I recommend these pages to the committee, as members may not have time to read the full book.

The book does not refer to the secret service, the military courts or other aspects of the occupation of the Palestinian territories, rather it includes a broad analysis of how the army controls the people. This is done through soldiers from different units in different years describing the same sets of actions. We understand we speak about policy. This book does not have extreme cases that can be called rotten apples or dismissed as a specific incident. It has what we recognise as norms within the Israeli army and norms of the occupation.

The book contains testimony from 101 soldiers and if there is one conclusion to all of this project, it is that there is a feeling that with the linear improvement of Israeli security in the last seven or eight years and improvement on the ground in the humanitarian Palestinian situation, one may think that there is also an improvement in the political situation, meaning more political space for Palestinians to take over and control their people. This is absolutely not the case. There is even stricter control by the army of Palestinian civil life.

When we as Israelis come to analyse these data, we seek to search for security policies. It does not matter whether they secure the settlements or the state of Israel. When we analyse what these 750 soldiers are saying, what we see as the main goal of the army today is to maintain the military control over the people and to maintain the occupation as if there was no end to it.

Owing to time limitations, I will provide a brief presentation of the first chapter of the book, which is called "Prevention". We tried to explain what the word "prevention" means within the army code. It has an obvious connotation outside of the army. It is a very defensive mechanism. We conclude that all the defensive actions can come under the definition of "prevention", but unfortunately almost all the offensive mechanism can come under this title as well. I will explain with a few examples.

What do we prevent? The notion is that we prevent terror and this sounds very defensive. The first connotation of the word "prevention" in Hebrew is literally "targeted prevention", which means "targeted killing" or assassination. Whom do we kill? Do we kill a terrorist on the way to attack or what we call a ticking bomb? We have no way to arrest the guy and so we kill him. That makes perfect sense to me as a military officer. In the first chapter, however, we ask the guy who gives the testimony whether we could have arrested such a person, and we can see that it is not that clear if there could have been an arrest operation or whether it had to have been a killing operation. When we ask why he did not arrest him, we are told that was not the mission.

When this concept is widened, we get revenge attacks. The Israeli Defence Forces, IDF, launched revenge attacks. Of course one branch of the army was after those who committed the attacks on the checkpoints, but some special forces were sent to kill random Palestinian police, whether armed or unarmed.

Whom do we arrest? Of course we arrest terrorists, but sometimes when we undertake an arrest operation, the target is not at home, so we might arrest his brother or his cousin and send him to the secret service. When we broaden this, we get to the mass arrest in which we were sent to arrest all the males within a specific area between the age of 15 and 50, or 16 and 55. We arrest hundreds of people, put them on trucks and send them to the secret service. From there, some are released in a few hours and some are released in a few days. We do not have records for that.

Perhaps the best example to show how the Israeli army controls the daily life of the Palestinians is with the title of "Making our presence felt". The concept is a concept of security, under the title of "prevention". If they feel that we are everywhere at all times, then they will be afraid to attack and they will not attack us. The idea is to create a feeling of being pursued. This is not my analysis, but the testimony from the soldiers who were sent to create a feeling of being pursued and being chased. I am not exaggerating about my company - I was deputy commander of an infantry company, which contains roughly 100 soldiers - when I say that 50% to 60% of our efforts were under this title of "making our presence felt". These are violent patrols entering Palestinian neighbourhoods and villages, throwing tear gas and stun grenades in the middle of the night, waking people up and causing a lot of noise to make our military presence felt.

An example of what we have been hearing more recently in Breaking the Silence is what we call "mock arrests". In these cases, a platoon is sent to arrest a guy but after five minutes or 24 hours, they release him. Before we send the platoon to a house, we make sure that the house is clean. Each Palestinian house has a location number on the map and through the brigade, we get an OK from the secret service, which means that the people in this house are not members of an organisation, so we know that the guy inside is innocent, and then we go and arrest him. When we ask the soldiers why they do that, we get two answers. First, we are told that there is less tension today and we want to keep the soldier trained and the best place to do it is on real people. We are told that the army does not want to send young soldiers to arrest terrorists the first time they leave the base. Second, we are told that it is done to confuse them. People in a Palestinian village or town wake up the next morning and they start to ask questions. Why was this guy arrested? We know that he is not a member of any military organisation, so why was he arrested? Why was he released? Perhaps a member of his family works for the Palestinian Authority and this is the collaborator who released him. This comes from the obvious question of why he was released so quickly. At this stage, the soldier can see that this makes no sense, and so it makes perfect sense. The idea is to confuse and to cause this arbitrariness in the daily Palestinian life, and that goes for arbitrary random checkpoints on the roads and these arrests.

To conclude on the concept of prevention and the creation of a feeling of being pursued, the subject of the feeling is always the Palestinian. This is where we lose the differentiation between militants and civil people that we control. That is why we call the first chapter "Intimidation of the Palestinian population - Prevention". It is prevention by intimidation.

If we move into human rights jargon and not speak only in clear-cut army codes, we can talk about collective punishments. I am not talking about a specific incident, say where on my company's way to arrest a guy we ran over a few Palestinian cars in a rally. I would not define that as a collective punishment. We say here that collective punishment becomes the mission in order to cause confusion and fear so that they will lose the will to fight back. That is the concept of prevention.

The next chapter speaks about separation, which is also used in many ways as prevention. Random checkpoints create the same feeling. Theoretically speaking, if occupation is not a prolonged occupation, the idea of the army should be about winning the hearts and minds of the local people. That is what one learns in theory. In the first chapter of the book, I show that we are doing exactly the opposite. We think the army is doing it because it does not see a way out. To give another example and to underline the fact that I am not speaking about security, the last Palestinian attack in the city of Hebron was in 2003, but until 2008 - I am translating literally from the book - the day-to-day routine of people living in the neighbourhood was disrupted to create a feeling of being pursued. In my time, in 2003, we called it "searing the consciousness" with the aim of persuading people that terrorism does not pay, so it is a different wording. Still, in 2011, there are sterile streets that Palestinians are not allowed to walk on, some roads that Palestinians are not allowed to drive on, and more than 1,000 shops that were closed in reaction to attacks at the beginning of the last decade. We are asking whether this is security. If there is an end in sight, why does the army act in these ways?

Chairman

Does anyone else wish to comment at this stage? I thank Mr. Chayut for presenting his testimony. We are delighted to have him here. As someone who has served as an officer in the Israeli army for five years with experience on the ground, he is obviously in a position to give first-hand testimony. Breaking the Silence is a well-respected international organisation and we appreciate his coming here to speak to us.

Our discussions today are in the context of substantial activities taking place at the UN. Mr. Chayut might give members his views on the application of the Palestinians for statehood. I saw an article in The Guardian recently criticising Breaking the Silence whose headline was as follows: “The latest in a wave of critical attacks on the Israeli army is based on flawed methodology and half-baked research.” Perhaps Mr. Chayut might give members some details of how he put together his testimony. Members undoubtedly have many questions, so we will take a few at this point.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I had the opportunity, along with some of the other members, to attend the informal briefing provided for members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade just before this. I would like to listen to some of the other questions and participate again in this formal session.

I repeat the point formally to Mr. Chayut that the work of his organisation is extremely important. Already, in the short number of years it has been in existence, it has won international respect for the work it has carried out in difficult circumstances, most importantly, by informing Israelis of what is happening in the occupied territories and about the fact that the actions of the Israeli army are not defensive but offensive in maintaining the status quo and perpetuating the conflict.

There are concerns that the recent changes implemented by the Knesset are aimed at silencing and neutering the impact of the testimonies of Mr. Chayut and his colleagues. I understand there are around 700 testimonies, which is a large number. Woven together, these clearly present a pattern which will, I hope, strengthen the peace process. In the Arab spring we are seeing the healthy, hopeful development of grassroots movements across the Middle East and north Africa which are rising up to challenge the regimes that have ruled them. With that, there must be a change of focus by the West in how we deal with that core conflict which is the interface between the Arab world and what are referred to as western values. We need to resolve that conflict. For the Arab world to see 700 Israeli soldiers give testimonies and clearly demonstrate their humanity is a powerful message that has achieved more than all the years of military occupation. It is a vital contribution to the peace process.

I make no apologies for my strong support for what Breaking the Silence is doing. I commend Mr. Chayut on his absolute courage in extremely difficult circumstances. My question is about his analysis of the legal changes the Knesset has tried to implement and what we as a committee can do to challenge anything that would prevent the advancement of human rights.

Deputy Michael McNamara

Like Deputy Mac Lochlainn I am concerned about militarism in the Middle East and also about the impact on freedom of speech of laws recently dealt with in the Knesset. Have those laws been challenged on the basis that they are contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or any freedom of speech protections that exist in the Israeli constitution?

Chairman

I ask Mr. Chayut to take those questions together first.

Mr. Noam Chayut

The first question was about the bid at the UN for Palestinian statehood. I want to make it clear that Breaking the Silence does not deal with solutions, so we do not have a position on whether this is the way to go. What we do fear is the separation between what is referred to as the peace process and the occupation. We see that on a political level both internationally and back home. There is a separation between the two issues. We see the occupation as an Israeli mechanism to control the Palestinian people. I do not think the Palestinians should negotiate their freedom. Of course there is a conflict that should be negotiated related to geographical issues such as water, but the issue with the occupation is that it is a method of control that has been used by the Israeli Government for the past 44 years. Our data from the past ten years are about the way in which we control these people and their civil life.

In the article that was mentioned, to emphasise this very same point, we exposed the way in which the army deals with non-violent - or violent only to the extent of stone-throwing - civil demonstrations against the fence that has been built to separate Palestinian land. No one can look me in the eye and say these demonstrations are a threat to the state of Israel or even to Israelis, but these demonstrations are a real threat to the absolute control of the Palestinian people by the army. That is why, when people are marching from different villages on their way to a village in which a demonstration is taking place, soldiers use tear gas without differentiation in order to prevent people from even getting there. There are blockades of villages and punishment of villagers, including the banning of work permits, and there are many arrests. There are more acts of prevention and more checkpoints around the villages that participate in non-violent demonstrations. Let us compare this with the life of the Palestinians in Ramallah. They live under the Palestinian Authority and they have a certain freedom because they do not challenge Israeli control of the area. The report contains statements of officers who stated how, until recently, they entered areas which were supposedly under Palestinian control. One officer providing this testimony in late 2008 stated that he entered neighbourhoods in Ramallah. He is aware that he was disturbing the Palestinian police and he ensured that he was seen by them. The idea was to show them that they continued to control until a certain point. If their control is not challenged, then they can manage the centre of the city. By comparison it is possible to see how we react when our control is challenged.

Two other questions related to the law of the Knesset and how it tracks our steps as an NGO. I am still free as a human being to act and Jewish Israelis who have served in the army are still free to act. We can produce reports such as this one. This is why we are keen to maintain the focus on the lack of freedom for Palestinians, who cannot even gather in protest in a non-violent way in the middle of their villages.

I am more concerned about civil society in Israel and the speeches being given relating to these laws rather than the laws themselves. They have been referred to by some Knesset members and by the Foreign Affairs Minister as collaborating with terrorism by giving materials to Hezbollah. Naturally, we would prefer to state in court that we never gave any secrets. All the reports from Breaking the Silence are produced through army censorship. We must do it according to the law but we are keen to ensure we are not revealing any secrets which might hurt the security of Israel. This remains deep in our hearts and the cause of what we are doing. We are doing this to promote the security of our people and the freedom of our neighbours.

Chairman

Can Mr. Chayut say something about his methodology?

Mr. Noam Chayut

We began as a group of 64 soldiers in late 2004 and we have grown by approximately 100 soldiers per year. The stream of testimony continues and we do not have enough energy to collect all the testimony. There are far more soldiers who wish to speak to us and provide testimony than we have ability to collect and process. The way we operate is simple. At the end of each interview we ask the soldier or the officer to give us the names of some friends from their unit or from civil life who would be prepared to speak to us. Generally we get between three and five people and usually one in three gives testimony.

Each testimony is recorded and usually there are several hours of recordings from which we take what we believe to be the routine policies. When reference is made to killing people or other definite crimes, we do not release it unless we have two unrelated sources to the same information. Recently, we have begun to ask people to speak without anonymity and we have approximately 43 such testimonies already, many of which are on a website or in the new media. They do not contain references to crimes which put the same person in danger of prosecution but they contain references to the basic routine of controlling people. We protect all our sources. The legal format is somewhat like a newspaper and we protect the sources under anonymity. Any judge or committee which promises security for them would simply be revealed.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I welcome Mr. Chayut. I missed the presentation but I have read the documentation forwarded by him. I wish to clarify one point. What is the ultimate goal of Breaking the Silence? There was a crisis in a Northern Ireland for many years and we know peace is not easy to achieve. Based on Mr. Chayut's experience and those who work with him in the group, what does he believe to be the best approach to achieving peace in the Middle East? Is the UN vote the best way forward for Palestine? Is it a good move at this point?

Deputy Colm Keaveney

I welcome the Mr. Chayut. I was startled by the presentation and the honesty. It must be cathartic to recover from what Mr. Chayut claims to be something that is rather difficult to live with. Mr. Chayut has taken these steps and has made a significant effort. This is important and I welcome it as part of his recovery. Clearly, he must have been affected in some way with regard to the actions that he claims and has alleged to have been involved in. It is working. I can put my head down at night and sleep. I welcome Mr. Chayut's honesty. It must be a relief in terms of Mr. Chayut's personal position with the legacy of what he has done. The work of Mr. Chayut and his group is brave. Mr. Chayut commented that the intention of Breaking the Silence is not to affect the domestic security of Israel and that the group has attempted not to jeopardise this in the testimonies by omitting any military references or secrets that could threaten the security of Israel.

What is the intention? What is the solution? Will Mr. Chayut outline what he believes to be the solution? Violence is not the solution, whether state organised or of any other nature. I can read into what Mr. Chayut chose not say as an officer in a division and there was a good deal he was not prepared to describe. At the receiving end of any violence is a human being. This is serious stuff. Does Mr. Chayut maintain there is an overreaction on the part of the Israeli state? Does it intend to develop an infrastructure of terror against the nation? The military response that Mr. Chayut has described is complex. Is it an overreaction? Why would the state of Israel design such a comprehensive, intrusive and devastating response, as has been described?

Chairman

Before Mr. Chayut responds I wish to add to what Deputy Keaveney has said. The committee was rather exercised in 2010 following the incursion of the Israeli army into the Gaza Strip in December 2009 and its subsequent activities. This leads to the question posed by Deputy Keaveney about whether there has been an excessive response to the situation. The Israelis have justification for the actions. What has been the nature of the testimony Breaking the Silence has received from the soldiers involved in the 2009 incursion? Would they have played a part in the recent deliberations and testimonies? Mr. Chayut might elaborate on that.

Mr. Noam Chayut

The goal of Breaking the Silence is to break the silence. We want people in all circles of responsibility, from the army to the Israeli public, which is our main target, Israeli leadership, public opinion and leaders around the world who can play a role to know how the army controls the people. That is the role of our organisation.

The Chairman mentioned peace. We do not go so far as to speak about final solutions or solutions to the conflict but we point to the fact there is differentiation between the conflict and occupation. We say what we say because we want people to know what is happening and we are against military control of the people. All 750 of us are sure there is no way to maintain the status quo and remain a moral society. Civilians cannot continue to be controlled in a moral way.

The army calls it an enlightened occupation and stated it is the most moral army in the world, as the committee probably heard. There is no way to control people militarily in a moral way. If it is done for a certain period of time to create a different political atmosphere or to change the reality, that is one thing, but the report states it is not the case and the goal of the army is to maintain the status quo.

It is also the answer to the second question on whether has been an overreaction. We spoke with low rank soldiers and other officers such as majors, which is a high rank but not a decision-making one, and therefore we do not know why decisions are made. We know how they are made. The purpose is to maintain control.

I will not refer to the psychological aspects of the Israeli soldiers as it is not our issue. Each person has to deal with it.

On Gaza, we published the report six months after the invasion. I was shocked. I live in Israel and listened to the news. I knew we disengaged from Gaza but when one reads the testimonies, one understands army battalions enter the Gaza strip on an almost monthly basis and brigades every few months. We hear about the invasions on the news. We collected testimonies about Gaza, not only about Operation Cast Lead operations but other operations which were not known to the public.

I explained how the army controls an area. It should let the Palestinians control their people to a certain level. In a way Gaza is an advanced area and controls defence and the port. Naval officers spoke about how the rules of engagement after the disengagement became more permissive, meaning they could shoot from the sea to the ground more easily. They described how they arrested fishermen.

I do not have a record of the descriptions but when one needs different sources of information, one is not in place permanently. Therefore, one needs collaborators and to have communication with people. I only have information on the arrests. For me as an officer it was common knowledge but I do not have data on it.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Chayut.

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the delegates. I admire the courage of Breaking the Silence. There has to be a solution to the issue sooner rather than later. President Obama's speech on the recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations last night was disappointing. I hope Ireland will recognise the state of Palestine. The late Brian Lenihan, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, was the first Minister to recognise the self-determination of the Palestinian people in harmony with Israel.

Unfortunately, when one raises the issue of Israel one is accused of being anti-Semitic. Israel knocks anyone who criticises its actions in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. I had the honour of leading a delegation with the current Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, the former Minister and Deputy, John Gormley, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and John Paul Phelan and the late Deputy Tony Gregory. We got direct experience of what is happening in Ramallah, Hebron and the occupied areas which, unfortunately, are expanding. They are becoming isolated and are now defended by Israeli troops who have taken over the best parts of Palestine which is making the situation far more difficult to resolve. Mr. Chayut's evidence is quite clear and we have received an e-mail about his activities. There must be a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the Middle East which must come about by the recognition of Palestine's right to self-determination and the recommencement of peace talks.

Mr. Chayut outlined what is happening at a local level and I accept what he said is accurate because I saw the checkpoints, the wall around Bethlehem and other areas, and the division of the country. It is a terribly dangerous situation. The decision of the US, in connection with Israel, to veto the proposal is making the situation in the Middle East more tense.

The Chairman has been very involved in the issue for many years. We have a very close affinity with the Palestinian people. The peace talks must recommence and there must be an ultimate settlement in the region, as happened in Ireland.

Chairman

In addition to the comments of Senator Leyden, considering the activity Mr. Chayut has engaged in, namely, gathering testimonies for the past seven years since Breaking the Silence was established, can he give members an assessment on the potential impact he might have had on political and military thinking in Israel? Has there been any impact on the way the army conducts its business, based on the testimonies Mr. Chayut has taken from the experiences of the soldiers who have been engaged in various military activities?

Mr. Noam Chayut

The main target of Breaking the Silence is Israeli society. As I said, we do not propose a specific solution or way out. We would accept any solution based on equality under the law, whether it involves two different laws from two different states. In the last chapter of the book we refer to the dual regime and the fact that in a small area a few hundred thousand Israelis are controlled by the Israeli police according to Israeli law. Their neighbours are in control, as I described earlier. Today there are two different communities living together in the same place. In the city of Hebron, people may share the same neighbourhood and share the same wall and live under two law systems with completely different sets of rights. For us, as soldiers, when we see settlers attacking Palestinians we do not interfere because it is not our mission. Our mission is to protect the settlers and defend them from the Palestinians, not the other way around. This is the precise point of the political thinking back home. Every year we bring thousands of Israelis to Hebron to see how it works. We speak to tens of thousands in our lectures around the country. We broaden the notion of the lack of equality in the dual regime in the Palestinian territory.

The army is not our target audience but when the army calls us, we respond. We send everything to be censored by the army so a branch of the army knows about everything we publish before it is made public. In our view, there is no other way of conducting the Israeli occupation. We do not think the change should be in the control of the army but rather it should come from those who give the orders to the army - the civilian and political powers. We understand the army's mission is to maintain the status quo. For this reason we do not challenge the changes on the ground.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I wish to raise an issue which was raised previously at this committee. I refer to the absence of any complaints structure or body to which complaints such as those which emerge daily can be referred. Is there anyone on either side to deal with complaints such as those raised by Mr. Chayut? What can be done to advance the provision of such a structure?

Mr. Noam Chayut

I am not sure I understand the Deputy's question. Does he mean a complaint from within the army or complaints by the Palestinians to the army?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I mean a complaints procedure that is available to everyone. In a conflict situation there will always be conflicting opinions and statements as to who was in the right. During our visit to the region, the existence of large-scale human rights abuses against prisoners by all sides was brought to our attention. There appeared to be no means by which those who were thus affected could lodge a complaint. There was no one, no structure nor peace process that could be deemed to be impartial in determining the validity of a complaint.

Deputy Seán Kyne

There are two sides to every story in every situation. Mr. Chayut is presenting the side which the Israeli people may not hear from official sources. He is telling the story from the point of view of being in the army. We hear both sides of the story, but possibly we hear about Israeli actions against Palestinians. In the interest of balanced commentary, does Mr. Chayut wish to comment on atrocities against Israel or against Israeli people or soldiers?

Mr. Noam Chayut

As to the complaints body, the army asked the Israeli Parliament more than once to allow the army speak to a committee at which we could talk about general norms rather than specific incidents. Does the Deputy wish me to talk about the way organisations have attacked the state of Israel and the way Palestinian militants attack the Israeli army? I am not sure it is a secret. The information is available. The same is true of our information which is much more credible. I would not go to look for balance because the situation is not balanced. In the past seven years, Breaking the Silence has never spoken about battlefields where the situation may be balanced. I participated in military action against militants but that is different from occupation on a daily level. There is a system for dealing with the control of the population and how random houses are chosen for nightly raids. For instance, the good morning greeting in the market is to throw two tear gas grenades and some stun grenades. This is the means of communication used by the ruler over the civilian population. This has been the case over 44 years of occupation. There have been attacks against this occupation and against the State of Israel. It is not our business to strike a balance. We explain the occupation as seen by Israeli soldiers who carry out the mission of occupation.

Deputy Colm Keaveney

When I was at school I was told that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Is Mr. Chayut's side reacting to an equal co-ordinated and resourced military response from the other side? Is he prepared to say that the actions of his side are an over-reaction? I appreciate there may not be the resources on the other side to use Breaking the Silence. From his experience as an Israeli military officer, however, has there been an over-reaction? As a young man living in a civilised society, is he hopeful there is an emerging view among Israeli citizens of the need for another more peaceful way? Would such a view be able to filter into the Knesset by democratic means, a view that the reaction he describes is not working, that this reaction is the problem and it attracts a response? It would be a human reaction to resist what he has described. Is this strategy provoking a resistance? Will it perpetuate a militarisation of a society which consequently will not permit space for peace discussions? The military solution was not what delivered peace in our country, rather it was delivered by dialogue and the issue of human rights. Are people of Mr. Chayut's age saying there needs to be another way? Is a consensus emerging to have such a discussion uninterrupted by the state? Can this be achieved without hindrance?

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I appreciate that, in the context of the questions they are posing, members are seeking to strike a balance. However, it is important to state for the record that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the continuing process of establishing and maintaining settlements and the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian homes in the first half of this year all are actions which are in defiance of international law. There are four or five UN resolutions in place in respect of this matter. In such circumstances, Israel's military actions in the areas to which I refer are illegal and they are being carried out by an illegal occupying force. The reality is that the presence of the Israel Defence Forces in the Occupied Territories is illegal in the eyes of the international community. We are involved now in trying to arrive at a negotiated settlement which will resolve this problem. Mr. Chayut has been asked to provide balance but it is important to place on record the internationally accepted view.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

A good deal of time has been devoted to this matter since 2004. What Mr. Chayut is doing appears very brave. He must meet with quite an amount of resistance within Israel. Is he seen as a traitor by the Israeli people at one level? He states that his goal is to break the silence and it appears he has achieved this. However, the ultimate goal must be peace. In such circumstances, how has his work and that of his organisation advanced the likelihood of peace being achieved?

Mr. Noam Chayut

If someone tries to insist that I should call an action an overreaction, I will not do it. I can describe the actions again and everyone can decide whether they represent an overreaction. I will provide an example. I was responsible for demolishing many Palestinian houses. In one instance, we threatened the head of the family - on the basis of an order that came from high up in the brigade - and informed him that if stones were thrown at settlers or military jeeps from a place near his house from which the road could be seen, we would demolish the house. Most of the houses in what we call Area C, which comprises 70% of the West Bank, are illegally built. This is because those who built them did not have permits. Only 100 or so permits were issued in the past seven years. Ignoring the technical and legal aspects, the house to which I refer was destroyed because teenagers from the village located near the road in question threw stones on a settler's car. We came to fulfil the threat we had made and we used a bulldozer to destroy the house, in which three families were living. Is this an overreaction? I do not know. That is for members to decide.

This is not security, it is a way to impose absolute control. Deputy Keaveney stated that this does not work. It does work. We are in a much better security situation. If the goal is to maintain the status quo of us controlling them, then, thank God, we have economic prosperity - I am happy about that - and security and we would never want to return to a situation where terrorist attacks were taking place. However, those on the other side have no freedom, are subject to more restrictions on their movement and are under the absolute control of the army. It was stated that this does not work but I state the opposite, namely, that it does work. The mission of the army was fulfilled. Since the goal is to maintain the status quo and as a result of the fact that the peace process and the occupation became two different issues, unless pressure is exerted to put the latter back together, then - in the context of the goal of the army, which came from the Israeli Government - we are succeeding in our main mission as a state. The Deputy asked me to comment on a personal level but I will not do so.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn referred to international law. In Breaking the Silence we do not refer to the law, we speak about morality. All of the people involved gave their testimonies, some of which related to clear-cut, illegal actions. The testimonies were collected because people crossed their own moral boundaries and called on the Israeli public not to back these immoral actions.

I was asked if we are referred to as traitors. Society in Israel is a vivid democracy for us, as free Israelis. Some people would call us traitors and others would state that we are brave and would help us. The work of Breaking the Silence would not be possible without the assistance of many hundreds of Israelis, volunteers and otherwise. This is another matter to which reference should be made. It is not us against Israeli society, rather it is us as a part of that society calling upon it to change.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

The points that have been made are valid. Unfortunately, however, they do not have an impact upon the overall problem to any great extent. As Mr. Chayut stated, what is being done is unjust and the immorality of it goes without question. How do his feelings, and those of other members of his organisation, about and reaction to the overall situation affect that situation? Can they have an impact in the context of a conclusion being reached in respect of the issues to which Mr. Chayut referred? All armies are guilty of breaches of the code that applies to them. In the 1920s in Ireland, the army of occupation and the national army - which had the full support of the people - broke that code to some extent or another. This always happens in the context of the reaction to a particular situation and what usually occurs is a series of reprisals. This does not solve anything and the hostilities can just remain ongoing.

I return to the point I made in respect of the establishment of a body to which the fundamental issues can be addressed. As previous speakers stated, such issues must be dealt with in a peaceful way. Attempts to address or to resolve them in a military way by either side, leaves a great deal to be desired. The Chairman and members can all attest to the fact that we have experience in that regard in this country.

Deputy Colm Keaveney

I am here to learn but there are certain thresholds beyond which there is no question of right and wrong. Mr. Chayut referred to the example of a house being demolished because teenagers from the nearby area threw stones at a settler's car from a place near that building. To whom do Palestinian people go if settlers throw stones at them? Can they approach Israeli soldiers and ask them to ensure that such individuals do not engage in antisocial behaviour of this nature? I am not being cynical in inquiring about this matter. Mr. Chayut replied to the question about the quality of the strategy, but he did not provide the answer I wanted to hear. He is correct when he states the strategy being pursued is a perfect strategy. I want him, however, to reflect on the strategy from a personal perspective. I am of the view that the strategy is fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Noam Chayut

The final chapter of the report refers to the dual regime. I can provide hundreds of examples regarding how we do not deal with attacks by settlers on Palestinians. Our orders are that, as an army, it is not our job to deal with these attacks. We do not take testimony from the Israeli police. However, it is the responsibility of the latter to impose Israeli law on Israelis outside of Israel, namely, people who live in the Palestinian Territories. A Palestinian can make a complaint to the Israeli police. However, as is stated in the second chapter of the report, on many occasions Palestinians cannot do so because police officers are deployed in the settlements, which Palestinians are prevented from entering. One cannot enter a settlement. If members read through the second chapter they will understand also the bureaucracy of separation. Many times one needs a permit to cross a checkpoint but to get that permit one needs to cross the specific checkpoint. That is an indication of the lack of ability on the ground for the Palestinian to be protected by the law. If one speaks about the international law, the army is allowed to and should stop acts by settlers against Palestinians. I cite the orders from the ground. The order of the soldier is not to do anything. The maximum one can do if one cares is to stand between the settler and the Palestinian. In some instances where there was a great deal of international pressure on the army, it would protect a specific route, for example, the Palestinian walks. They are a cave-dweller society and its people would walk to a school in a village and, therefore, the army would protect them following many attacks on international peace activists who tried to protect the Palestinians. That was also as a result of international pressure.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I believe I have asked this question twice, Chairman, but how does Mr. Chayut feel about the fact that his work, though laudable of itself, is advancing the likelihood of achieving peace in the Middle East?

Mr. Noam Chayut

There is no way to speak about a solution when people do not speak about the problem. What we are doing is bringing out the details of the way we manage the occupation in order that the Israeli society will stop backing the occupation or the actions of the army as if they were acts of defence. For people to change their minds and understand we are not talking about defence or a defensive mechanism but maintaining a prolonged occupation, one must raise public awareness of that. The situation will not change if Israeli society continues to back what the army is doing. The same is the case here. Israel will not change its tack because it is a successful one unless it comes under pressure to do it. Let us not expect the Israeli people to do something that no such society has done. As far as I understand from history, no privileged society has ever given up its privileges just like that, and if security and the economy are great and if the mission is to maintain the status quo of controlling its neighbours, why would they stop?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

The situation is not great. How is Mr. Chayut imputing all his findings and testimonies to the Israeli Government or is he doing so? I do not mean to be disrespectful but he is on a mission around the world and he is right that we must deal with the problem but how is he advancing it with the people who are the perpetrators of the problem?

Mr. Noam Chayut

I believe if the Senator reads the report and listens to me there will be a change in her actions, and that change might bring about a better future for our region. That is what we are doing on a large scale. At home, most of our activity is in Israel and in Hebrew to the Israeli people, to the society of Israel, in order to bring about change. There is a lack of information. People feel the army is dealing with security. People do not know the way we are doing it and we believe that by revealing it we can bring about a change.

To give the Senator another answer, and it is not apologetic by any means, that is the only thing I can do. The only thing we can do is break the silence. The rest is for the Senator and other people to change. The only thing I can do, and no one else can is to bring out the information.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I have one final question. I recall an Israeli-based journalist saying his task as a journalist was to monitor centres of power. That was said by Robert Fisk at a meeting I attended many years ago and that remark has stayed with me. The critical role of a journalist in a democracy is to tell a story without fear or favour.

I must record that I am somewhat puzzled by the line of questioning. Hundreds of soldiers from the Israeli defence forces are giving testimony that clearly demonstrates to the Israeli people and the world that the role of the Israeli army within the occupied territories, as presented to the Israeli people and to the world, which is one of defensive action reluctantly taken, is one of the classic tactics by an army occupying a population that does not want to be occupied and is quite offensive. That can also be seen from testimonies spanning hundreds of years and, tragically, conventional armies have not learned from that. If one reflects on the history of the USSR, the United States, major international powers and that of Ireland, the powers concerned could never understand how when one occupies and deploys those tactics, they always come back and ultimately lead to defeat and removal from the area.

I am puzzled how anyone could ask what Mr. Chayut thinks he seeks to achieve. What he has compiled and presented here is respected internationally. It is seen as having much more of a contribution towards peace and reconciliation in that region, especially at this time, than all the military actions over decades. Also it is seen to demonstrate humanity. Mr. Chayut comes from a specific background. I am sure he is a proud Israeli and that many of his colleagues are proud of their religion and heritage, and rightly so, but in his humanity and concern for the plight of the Palestinian people, I am clear that he has done much more than decades of military occupation. Members have a right to their view and to put questions, but I have a right also to record that perspective. I believe that perspective is shared by the international community, as was clear from President Barack Obama's speech and the reception it received at the UN yesterday. The international community's view is clear. I believe and am convinced this conflict will be resolved very soon. The contributions of Mr. Chayut and his colleagues will have been seen to have been decisive in conflict resolutions. I am very clear and not at all puzzled about what Mr. Chayut is about.

Chairman

I will take a final and short contribution from Deputy Durkan.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am glad the Chairman mentioned that it would be short. There is another issue. I understand Deputy Mac Lochlainn's concern about the line of questioning. It should also be known that this committee previously met all sides in the conflict in the Middle East and played a leading role in rejecting, for instance, the tactics used in Operation Cast Lead. Down through the years members of this committee and similar committees have visited the area, lived in the area, stayed in a kibbutz and hotels in the area, and have been in the area when hotels and guesthouses were blown up and people carried their dead out into the streets following operations by both sides. We are long enough in the business to know that kind of situation does not go away over night. I visited the area for the first time more than 30 years ago and I was back there for the second time last year. Unfortunately, nothing had changed. The same speeches were made by the same people on opposing sides. The only thing that had happened in the meantime was that more people had died for whatever they had seen as a just cause, as always happens in such situations.

I do not wish to be judgmental. I am not in a position to judge for the simple reason that there is not in place a body to which those who feel aggrieved on either side could bring their grievances on a daily basis. One can comment on the issue, but the effect one ultimately has on the end product is zilch. It is propaganda. That is not to minimise in any way the job you are doing, Chairman, but propaganda is always employed by factions on both sides. I again emphasise that we had our own similar experiences for nearly 100 years.

I do not accept what Deputy Mac Lochlainn said, that the issue will be resolved soon. It will only be resolved when both sides recognise each other's right to exist. That is fundamental. Until that happens the conflict will continue; yesterday's grievance will become tomorrow's source of retaliation and vice versa. The matter is not simple. I do not for one moment suggest Deputy Mac Lochlainn regards it as such, but the fact remains that both sides must address the issues involved and recognise each other’s right to exist. The two are not synonymous.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. Does Mr. Chayut wish to make a final contribution?

Mr. Noam Chayut

I am a proud Israeli and love Israel. I am a free human being under an enlightened law. However, my neighbours are not free. Their freedom should be an obvious first aim. We should seek their freedom and equality for them, not just security for both sides which has not been a feature of the region in the past 44 years.

Chairman

This has been one of the best and most interesting debates and discussions we have had. It is obviously a two-way process. We need representatives to come before us to give us their views and testimony, but we must also involve ourselves in the debate in the hope we can make suggestions that might prove useful to them. As I said, this has been the most fascinating discussion we have had since I became Chairman of the joint committee.

The work Breaking the Silence is doing is marvellous. It is an internationally respected organisation. Christian Aid and Trócaire are respected organisations in this country and the fact that they are supporting Breaking the Silence is important. The testimonies of soldiers on the ground are a major part of the peacemaking process, as there can be no solution without addressing the problems involved. We need the maximum amount of information available.

In many ways, Breaking the Silence is flowing against the tide in the sense that its members are standing up and being counted. That is extraordinarily important and courageous on their part. Of course, there are broader considerations which are very much for others to deal with, but the work Breaking the Silence is doing as part of the peacemaking process is essential. I commend Mr. Chayut on the work done and his frank contribution and responses to the questions put to him. I thank him for giving of his time and wisdom. I also thank members for their excellent contributions.

Mr. Noam Chayut

I thank the joint committee for inviting me.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.55 p.m. and adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until noon on Tuesday, 27 September 2011.