JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 28 Oct 2004

Israeli Land Policy: Presentation.

Chairman

I am pleased to welcome Mr. Oisin Coghlan of Christian Aid Ireland. As members are aware, Christian Aid is the official relief and development agency of 40 church denominations in the UK and Ireland. It has recently published a report on Israeli land policy, entitled Facts on the Ground: The end of the two state solution? The report examines the impact of Palestinian land loss and movement control on ordinary Palestinians and the wider implications for the future of both Israeli and Palestinian societies.

Before Mr. Coghlan begins his presentation, I wish to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Coghlan to address the committee, after which the discussion will be opened to members.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

I welcome the opportunity to address the committee on the subject of our report. I am sorry that I am here on my own. A member of Bethsalim, a partner human rights organisation in Israel, visited us last week but our schedule did not coincide with that of the committee. This report has not been written by me in Dublin and my colleagues in London, rather it is based on our relationship with our partners in both the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel. We work with partners who either offer humanitarian support to those in poverty or are working towards a just and peaceful solution. The report is informed by their voices.

I plan to put some proposals to the committee and then engage in a discussion with members. The simple message of the report revolves around the two-state solution. In 1980, the former Minister, Mr. Brian Lenihan, was the first EU Minister with responsibility for foreign affairs to publicly call for the Palestinian right to self-determination. Since then, it has become a cornerstone of both Irish and EU foreign policy that the two-state solution is the resolution to this conflict, whereby a stable, secure and prosperous Palestine existing side-by-side with Israel offers the best chance of security and stability for both countries.

Our simple message is based on our experience and those of our partners on the ground that the viability of the two-state solution is vanishing. As a humanitarian and development organisation with an interest in human rights, we have no vested interest in one solution over another. However, the two-state solution has been part of Irish and EU foreign policy, as well as the other international peace initiatives, including the road map, and is the stated policy of President Bush and members of the Israeli Government.

Why does Christian Aid believe the two-state solution is becoming unviable? There are three elements, the first of which is the issue of settlements. We have seen the tension caused in Israel by the potential pull out of 8,000 settlers from Gaza. There are 400,000 settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and on occupied Palestinian land which are regarded as illegal under international law. These will not be easy to move, either politically or physically. It is not impossible but Israel continues to increase the number of settlements, even during the Oslo peace process. Mr. Ehud Barak was often regarded as Israel's peacemaker with the Palestinians. However, he thickened many of the settlements. While they occupy only 12% of West Bank land, the security zones and the municipal areas around them account for 43% of West Bank land. When the Israelis claim they are freezing settlements, they mean they are not building new ones. However, they still take up more of that 43% by building out in those areas. In 2004 alone, 1,000 new housing contracts in the West Bank were authorised by the Israeli Government, while at the same time it spoke of pulling out of Gaza. The problem with the settlements is that they prevent a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, leaving it as parcels of land separated from each other.

I had the privilege of bringing two members of this committee, Senator Norris and Deputy O'Donnell, to Israel and the occupied territories in January. I was struck by the road network and how difficult it is to move around the West Bank. The UN calculated 750 closures in the West Bank through checkpoints, barriers and other forms of roadblocks. This has nothing to do with Israeli security but with the control of Palestinians' movement. The roads on which Palestinians cannot travel is a more striking element. The main road networks on the West Bank and the occupied territories are used to move Israelis from the settlements to Israel itself. Their experience of living there is as if they are in Israel, commuting to work without any difficulty. B'Tselem, after much consideration, called these apartheid roads. Even in apartheid South Africa, there was a never a time when the black population was not allowed to drive on the roads. This, however, is the case in the major spine routes through the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Many governments and various groups have called on the Palestinian Authority to be more open, democratic and accountable. When we met the Speaker and other members of the Palestinian Legislative Assembly, they told us how they simply cannot move around to visit their constituents and represent their voters. For the Assembly Speaker to get to Gaza, he had to travel on a UN development programme permit, giving him permission to evaluate its projects. He could not move as an elected representative and was confined to the immediate area around Ramallah.

Up to 90% of the separation barrier is being built on West Bank territory. If it was being built on Israeli territory, Christian Aid would regret it, believing it is not the way forward for two peoples to live through reconciliation and peace. Christian Aid would accept that it is Israel's right to build it if it so wishes on its own land. However, the problem is that it is being built on Palestinian land. It is recognised by many, including the Israeli Supreme Court, as causing immense hardship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who cannot get to their land. Dr. Anat Biletzki has pointed out that we are now in the midst of the olive harvest. The Palestinian economy, such as it is, largely depends on agriculture and the olive harvest is a main source of income. It is now more difficult for Palestinians to get to their fields and gather the harvest. If they do get to the fields, it is not safe as they are coming under fire from Israelis. If they do manage to gather the harvest, they cannot get it to market. It is one example of how the Palestinian economy is being undermined. As well as a contiguous state and secure borders, a viable economy is another prerequisite for any stable Palestine and two-state solution.

There are examples of the hardships being caused to individual families and Palestinian society by the wall. However, it is not just a wall. While most of it is on the green line, the recognised armistice line between Israel and the territories, the fence and the barbed wire are almost as bad. We visited Qalqiliya, a municipality of 80,000, where the 40,000 inhabitants of the town are cut off from the 40,000 inhabitants in the hinterland with only one entrance and exit. Most of it is surrounded by fences not wall, but it gives the equal impression of a camp and people cannot move to their farms, hospitals or services. The town is slowly being strangled.

The wall is the seam in the fabric of the occupation. However, it is being moved and is not entirely set in stone. The Israeli Supreme Court has made certain rulings that it should be moved which will be respected. However, Israel will not respect the rulings of the International Court of Justice that the entire wall on Palestinian land is illegal. If it is moved to some degree, those parts already built will not be moved. Even then, the seam is being moved but the infrastructure and the fabric of occupation still exists. Our previous report, Losing Ground, on poverty among Palestinians concluded that the occupation is the fundamental cause of poverty among Palestinians. That is our primary motivation and mandate for being concerned by this situation.

It is rather pessimistic but Christian Aid believes the international community can no longer stand back. Our Palestinian partners all say they need international intervention because it is no longer adequate for the international community to hope or promote a negotiated settlement between the two sides. The asymmetry is too large between Israel, a superpower in the region, and the shambolic situation in the Palestinian territories. Israel will not even agree to negotiate with elected Palestinian leaders. The international community must intervene more forcefully.

As Christian Aid is based in Ireland and Britain, our first port of call is to both Governments and the EU. The EU must act as a counterweight in this situation. Any negotiated settlement will involve the US. However, the US does not see itself as an independent honest broker, particularly since President Bush's recognition in April of the facts on the ground, going against UN resolutions and international law and supporting Prime Minster Sharon's policy of expanding the settlements.

It is very difficult to see the US as independent and neutral. Therefore, we think it is a mistake for the EU to take the line of being balanced and keeping symmetry between the two sides, when such symmetry does not exist on the ground. We realise it is difficult to get consensus within an EU of 25 states, but we are calling on the Irish and British Governments to work within the EU for a stronger European line. If not, Ireland's foreign policy in this region will turn to dust.

I feel it is worth making a few comments on Gaza and the disengagement plan. We have said that Israel must remove the occupation. However, the disengagement plan is not how we envisaged it should happen. It should happen through a negotiated solution. It could be a contribution to the fulfilment in the road map of the two state solution, but there is no evidence that will be the case and we are very concerned about it for a number of reasons. What is being handed over and to whom is it being handed over? The Israelis have systematically destroyed most of the infrastructure in Gaza, including the human resource infrastructure. There is not much of a stable administration to which the Israelis can hand over Gaza. They are not handing over control of borders, sea or airspace; nothing that could be constituted as a proto-Palestinian state. This cannot be seen by the international community as an experiment in Palestinian home rule or Palestinian independence. That is how the Israelis will present it but it does not constitute that.

Israeli policy on this matter is twofold. First, Dov Weisglass, an advisor to Prime Minister Sharon, has stated that the disengagement plan puts Palestinian statehood off the agenda for the foreseeable future as the world will look at Gaza to see what is happening. Israel will be able to state that is has finished with it and will have to wait in the West Bank until there is a new peace partner before it can engage on ending the occupation on the West Bank. Second, there is a natural tendency on the part of the international community to wait and see what happens in Gaza before pressing on the West Bank. We think that a Gaza disengagement is being set up for failure. When it fails, if it turns to more chaos than is there at the moment, then the Israelis and others can ask how could they possibly move towards an independent Palestine when Palestinians cannot even manage the Gaza Strip, which is so small and homogenous in comparison with the West Bank. We are very concerned about how the disengagement plan relates to the road map, the two state solution or to existing international law.

We consider it an opportune time for the committee to consider a visit to the region and some sort of report based on that visit. It is not the same as Project Ethiopia or Uganda. It is not simply an Ireland Aid country, although Ireland does have a significant aid investment in the Palestinian territories. As we have a new foreign Minister and a new Minister of State for development, it is a good time for the committee to give a renewed focus and energy to Irish foreign policy in the region. We believe that European policy is at a crossroads. Now that we no longer have the honour nor the constraint of the EU Presidency, Ireland is perhaps in a better situation to pursue its own foreign policy within the EU on this situation. We urge the committee to consider the possibility of a visit to the region. Second, Israel has an association agreement with the EU, which grants it preferential market access for its goods in the EU. Clause 2 in that agreement is a human rights clause and we believe the EU should apply it. The EU should look at the Israeli human rights record and if it is not meeting human rights standards, should consider suspending the privileged access granted to Israel.

Senator Norris

I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak as I will have to leave to attend the Order of Business.

Senator O’Rourke

I am sorry I cannot stay but I have other duties at 10.30 a.m.

Senator Norris

I thank the committee for its indulgence in allowing me to speak early. I congratulate Christian Aid for its report, it is a very fine one. It is useful to read it in conjunction with an earlier report entitled Losing Ground. They both form a composite picture.

I am not anti-Israeli nor anti-Semitic. I have lived there for some years and it is a part of the world I love. I also understand the political pressures because when there are bombs going off in civilian areas, it tends to concentrate political response in a rather strong or perhaps even extremist direction. However, I agree completely with Mr. Coghlan on the two issues he has put before us. One is a visit to the region, which I think would be very helpful. It also would be a good idea if we took in the area of south Hebron, about which I have spoken extensively at the committee. I have also suggested to this committee that we should ask the Government to investigate the operation of the human rights clauses attached to the external association agreement. I do not approve of boycotts because they have a nasty history. They come out as vindictive, personal and they can be used as a cloak for anti-Semitism. However, this is an international instrument and it has human rights attachments to it. If they mean anything then the situation which currently obtains in Gaza and in the West Bank is a classic example.

We know that human rights are being abused and I know that Israeli civilians are being attacked by guerrilla factions. What is happening in Gaza and in the West Bank is a direct result of official Israeli Government policy and that is the difference. That is where these international instruments come in and unless they are to become completely meaningless and the whole notion of human rights in Europe is to be disastrously devalued, then there is an obligation on us to see that these human rights attachments are operated. They are a non-military, non-aggressive, diplomatic and trade instruments that would speedily lead to a positive discussion between the European Union and the Israeli Government.

We could list all these violations such as the deaths of children, the bombing of civilian targets and collective punishment, which is outlawed under international law. We could get legal advice on this from a dispassionate person. One of the things I find most persuasive in this document, which I urge everyone to read, is the number of Israeli Jewish academics and organisations who are quoted. When the word "ghetto" is used, it is used by a very distinguished Israeli professor. When the word "apartheid" is used, it is not used by some anti-Semitic member of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, but by an Israeli scholar of great standing within her own community. The best thing we can do for Israel, a country I love, is to support those persons of conscience such as the professors quoted in this research, the 29 Israeli air force fliers who refused to accept illegal orders to bomb the settlements or the distinguished Israeli doctors of Physicians for Human Rights who I saw queuing in the mud and being abused by 19 year old soldiers, for whom I also feel compassion.

I remember the exhibition of photographs in Tel Aviv organised by these soldiers and their mothers, who were concerned at what was happening to decent Israeli young men under this regime. That is the type of action we have to support. As Irish people we can also respond to the type of material that is in this book. We have the evidence of professional academic people. It is clear, clinical and cold. At the last meeting of this committee I described the situation in south Hebron where children are being most viciously attacked with knives and chains in the village of Twune. I understand a representative of the Israeli Embassy is here today. I would like that gentleman to take back to the embassy this message about the villages around south Hebron and the fact that the Israeli police are protecting the settlers and ignoring the situation when children are being attacked. That is insupportable and I hope the embassy will realise this creates a real echo in a country such as Ireland where we witnessed with horror — I speak as a Protestant — of Protestant paramilitaries attacking Roman Catholic children going to school in the Holy Cross convent school in Belfast.

There is also the question of land; some 3,670 acres were confiscated to build the wall and 102,000 olive trees were destroyed. Ireland is still a country with strong farming roots. We know about land and how agonising it is to be forced to sit on one side of a barbed wire fence and watch 30,000 chicks in a poultry farm dying as a result of drought. People are now allowed to travel 100 yards to ensure they are fed and watered. This is an important book and sets a context. It also explains how dangerous it is to take at face value even matters such as the Oslo Accord which were founded on corrupt maps incorporating illegal settlements. There is a quotation here which analyses precisely what Mr. Sharon is doing. This Jewish professor states that if the pull-out is completed and political arrangements are made, what will be left will be an unviable truncated area which, to use his word, will be a "ghetto".

The Chairman has been gracious in allowing me to speak first; I will leave it there as other people want to get in, but I will come back to this. I would like to propose that this committee adopt in some form Christian Aid's recommendation No. 2 and that it request the Minister to look at the possibility of operating the human rights clause to the external EU-Israel association agreement. I understand that my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, will formally second that and I believe many other members would agree with this also.

Deputy M. Higgins

I have a difficulty in that I am due to speak quite soon in the Dáil on another matter. I would like to strongly support what Senator Norris has just said and formally second what is proposed in recommendation No. 2:

The Committee could call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to work within the European Union for the application of the human rights conditions attached to the preferential market access granted to Israel under the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

Although I may have to leave before we come to it, I also believe that it is time for us to implement the decision of the Sub-committee on Development Co-operation that we should visit Gaza soon. I believe this should be undertaken and the committee itself should decide when to go. I visited Gaza a long time ago with Deputy David Andrews, during the first intifada. This unfolding tragedy causes me a great deal of sadness. I raised this matter in the Dáil recently and I would like to just set out some general principles.

On reading the Christian Aid report it is clear the justification for the settlements is a military one, by way of protection. The time has come for the international community to realise the nub of the present position, which is not just being driven by the need for military protection, but accepts the principle of pre-emption. During all my time in Parliament I will argue against pre-emption. The idea of a pre-emptive strike outside the Charter of the United Nations, in breach of international law in the case of the attack on Iraq, was one of the main principles in my opposition to that war. I found it interesting that the exact same language was used, to justify pre-emption outside the charter. Members will recall the discussion in every legal text on the principle of pre-emption, of responding with proportionate force to a demonstrated imminent danger and so forth. These conditions have not been met.

There has also been the notion of what I call "assassination from the skies", the targeting of particular individuals on the basis of membership of organisations and the acceptance of related civilian deaths not as accidents to be apologised for, but simply contextual. For example, when we analysed the latest killings in a refugee camp, I remember looking at the long list of people. One part of it worried me. I attempted in the Dáil to actually read out the names of some of the people killed and to say how they had died. One of the unfortunate disasters of the continuing situation in Palestine is that it is just the numbers that are given, regardless of whether they are on the Palestinian or the settler side, as if these were not human beings. The number of people under the age of 16 years was astonishing as was the number who were over 80. These were very old and very young people who lost their lives in what was a selective pre-emptive strike on a refugee camp in the name of taking out people who threatened to make attacks.

I am one of the longest serving members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I remember a predecessor to the person who now represents Israel in Ireland comprehensively insulting people such as myself when we issued statements condemning the deaths of civilians in Israel, suggesting that we were not for real. I found it to be as insulting and offensive as it was calculated to be by the person who made it. I am not going down that road again, nor will I be intimidated by any suggestions that those of us who want to make some progress on this region are in some way anti-Semitic. It is time that this kind of blackmail stopped.

I was concerned as I read this report, among others, about the smug way in which those who are carrying out the actions I have described, are actually giving the two fingers to every principle of international law. The reality of the wall, for that is what it is, not a barrier, is something on which the International Court of Justice at The Hague has expressed an opinion. That opinion is valuable to any member of the international community. It is interesting to recall who ignores the findings of the International Court of Justice. I remember when the preparations were being made for the United States to appear before the International Court of Justice for the shelling of the port of Corinth in Nicaragua. At that stage the United States was sufficiently powerful to state it did not recognise what it called the "United Nations' court". That is the position of Israel as well. It just will not recognise the International Court of Justice decision. Neither will it recognise the fundamental principles of the Geneva Convention. Nor will it recognise the conditionalities that attach to its relationship with the European Union, as regards compliance with human rights. It tells us, when it brings on a spokesperson, that what it is doing is removing in advance a threat to settlers. I do not want any child of a settler family to die or any settler to die. I do not want any of these families to be attacked, but I have to recognise that what is happening on settlement policy is resulting not just in the loss of the lives I have been describing, but the systematic destruction of a way of life. How long more will we have to look at the implications in the report for the health of the people being oppressed in this way? How long more does the European Union intend to look on and see the millions it has spent, not on emergency aid, but development, bulldozed into the ground? What is the significance of bulldozing an olive grove? It is the sense not just that the individuals are leaving, although they have been there for generations, but that none of them will ever be there again. If one looks at the length of the life of an olive grove and what has been created through people's attempts at agriculture in the region, one sees that this is not just outside international law but is the destruction of the way of life of a people and the people themselves.

I have followed all the international negotiations, and I remember the arguments made for a one-state solution. I heard the late Edward Said speak on it in detail. I remember the origin of the two-state solution, which is only for real if we are talking about a viable state with the usual sovereignty attached to it. We are not talking about half a state reduced to a ghetto with such severe conditions imposed on its defence and international relations as to make it meaningless. I sometimes hear what I call the "percentage people" talking about how near the Palestinians were to getting everything they wanted only to throw it away. We have long passed the point of that rhetoric, and we are also long past the point at which the European Union, as part of the Quartet, the sponsors of the road map, needs a deeper and sustained relationship. We have a new European Parliament and Commission. The time is right for them to take the initiative.

I wish the Irish News would report matters in their fullness. I read with sadness about Chairman Arafat this morning and how seriously ill he is, noting that the Israeli authorities are willing to allow him to leave Ramallah for such treatment as he may need. Unfortunately, the Irish News did not carry the final rider, which was that the Israelis cannot guarantee him the right of return. That the chosen head of the people, irrespective of whether we like him, is effectively imprisoned and approximately a dozen people are given the right to travel between Gaza and the West Bank is no indication of any genuine desire for peace. It is time we had frank talks with all the people involved, including the Israeli authorities. I say this because Senator Norris described an expression of those magnificent people within Israel — the vast majority, I am sure — who want security and peace but also for Israel to be welcomed back into the community of nations that respects international law and institutions.

Senator Mooney

I endorse the comments and sentiments of my distinguished colleague, Deputy Higgins, regarding President Arafat's illness. I understand that he is drifting in and out of consciousness. I hope that he will recover. It may not seem like a very sensitive point to make, but it is quite obvious that changes are taking place in the various bipartisan and multilateral relations between countries, exclusively as a result of what is happening in the Middle East and Iraq. There is already a move towards internal reform of Fatah in Palestine. I hope that those reforming voices within the Palestinian Authority will continue to be encouraged. We in Ireland all hold the view that there are rights and wrongs on both sides.

It is inevitable that Israel, because of its military power and might, will always be seen as wrong, as well as being wronged, in what it is doing in the occupied territories. However, I would like to acknowledge that Prime Minister Sharon's decision to negotiate a successful vote through the Knesset some days ago, which one hopes will result in the dismantling of the stated settlements, is a courageous act in internal Israeli political terms, and one of interest to those of us who have been following Prime Minister Sharon's career over several years. When he first came on the political scene, he took the position of being the ultimate hawk, not at all interested in any negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. He had taken a very extreme view. I remember well how, when I was in Jerusalem some years ago, I was shown the house he had bought in the Arab sector of the city, where he was flying the Israeli flag as a deliberate provocation to the Palestinians to prove to them that Jerusalem was Israeli in its entirety. When one considers that he was under such pressure, ironically from the very sections of the Israeli political establishment he had been courting and who had encouraged him for years, it seems a small beacon of hope.

However, if the settlement proposal goes ahead, it will still only reduce the numbers of settlers from 240,000 to 190,000. I would also like to ask about the military necessity of demolishing so many houses in Rafah. The official position of the Israeli Government and the IDF is that it is to eliminate tunnels operating between Egypt and Rafah. Yet the evidence on the ground, from such sources as Human Rights Watch, in its recent report in particular, is that the tunnels are new ones built to link up with existing ones and that the number running across into Egypt is quite small. The IDF has repeatedly been asked why it does not block the tunnels or use modern technology overground of the kind being used on the Mexican-US border to identify subterranean activity. It is instead taking the option of a medieval army on the rampage, knocking down everything in front of it. Since there is obviously no proven case of military necessity, it must be asked whether this is a political act being carried out by the IDF to intimidate the Palestinians yet again and prove to everyone who cares to listen that they are not really interested in a two-state solution or, if they are, that they want a prison camp operating outside their wall.

I make that point factually and without emotion, yet I still hear Israeli Government spokespersons saying they are doing this to protect Israeli citizens. I have no problem whatsoever with the protection of Israeli citizens. I have no problem in principle about the erection of a wall. However, I have a very real problem as a human rights campaigner with the manner in which the IDF is trampling over the rights of innocent Palestinians, particularly women and children, as whole families are suddenly finding their houses being bulldozed out of existence. It is incumbent on this committee to continue to highlight the scandal of what is happening in Rafah. There is no question that the wall is about a land grab. They can argue as long as they like and wherever they choose. This is not simply about security.

I share the view — it is the central point of my contribution — that it is past time the EU took the gloves off regarding its relations with Israel. It is no longer acceptable to say that it is a democracy in a sea of dictatorships and that this fragile flower should be encouraged so that, by dialogue and diplomatic niceties, somehow Israeli Government policy will change. It is perfectly obvious that it will not. The EU should take a more proactive role.

Regarding the view that the Israeli Government and political establishment are giving two fingers to Europe in particular, in the past few weeks an Israeli Government report on the implications of Israeli policy worldwide, and the contribution it makes to Israel's image, was quite damning. It was a warning shot to the Israeli political establishment about what the future holds. As Deputy Higgins noted, the two fingers have been given for decades to the international community and especially to Europe. I have visited Israel twice on parliamentary delegations and have had personal experience there of the palpable hostility whenever the question is raised of an enlarged role for the European Union.

It is time the Israeli Government and political establishment realised that the world is changing rapidly. That is the essence of the report to the Government. US hegemony in the world will decrease over the decades. The EU is becoming stronger politically and economically. Its development aid programme and human rights philosophy will form the dominant theme in the coming years. As a result of EU enlargement and the economic muscle the European Union will bring to bear on the world stage, Israel can no longer hide behind its friends in America. It is time Israel realised that and began to adjust.

The parallels between the political evolution on this island and the political realities in the Middle East are astonishingly coincidental. There is a similar situation with the Unionists in Northern Ireland who understand perfectly well that the old hegemonies and certainties are no longer acceptable, which is why we are negotiating a peace process. I urge the Israeli Government to use the information it has been given by its own people.

I share the view of Deputy Higgins that any criticism of Israeli Government policy should not be tied to allegations of anti-Semitism. I am sick and tired of reading commentators, especially the claque which operates out of the United States from the Jewish lobby, brand as anti-Semitic any public figure in Europe who takes a stance on what is going on in Palestine and criticises Israeli Government policy. I and every elected representative, including members of this committee, have every right to criticise the Israeli Government, as we have with regard to any other country where human rights are abused. I will continue to maintain that right.

Deputy Durkan

I thank the Chairman for his words of welcome. It is a number of years since I was a member of this committee.

The situation in the Middle East has remained unchanged for a long time. Whether we like it, the problem involves religion, culture, history, politics and, unfortunately, hatred. As a result of those complications there can be no simple answer unless some dramatic sea-change occurs of which we have not yet heard.

I note the points made by Senator Mooney. We must always reserve the right to criticise either side equally, and without apology, for atrocities. It is true that as the report states, interference with the free passage of citizens in the Palestinian area is deeply irritating to those offended by it. We know that even from past experience in this island. That is part and parcel of what continues to happen in the Middle East. It is also true that atrocities have been committed in the name of a cause. Causes may be great and sacred, but no matter how great or sacred they are or are perceived to be, they do not justify the unwarranted, heartless and mindless killings that have taken place over the years in this and other similar situations throughout the world.

There is increasing evidence of indiscriminate slaughter of innocent citizens simply to achieve a public relations target and to embarrass the other side. That tit-for-tat can continue endlessly without resolution. One can try to appease one side as much as one can, or understand it as much as possible, but as long as the concept prevails that any means will justify the action taken, we can never have a resolution. Whatever influence the European Union can bring to bear on the situation now, it must be towards attempting to defuse the situation — no pun intended — and provide a breathing space. This has not yet been achieved. When Bill Clinton was President of the United States he made a very serious effort to bring that about. He did not achieve it and it has not subsequently been achieved.

The emphasis should now be on attempting to separate the sides in a way that will give both a breathing space. In view of the current health of Yasser Arafat it would also be helpful if the Israeli side in the dispute were conscious of the sensitivities of Palestinians. Small elements can make a big difference when it comes to recognising the other person's position or walking in the other person's shoes.

Deputy Allen

I thank the Chairman for his welcome, and I also welcome Mr. Coghlan. I am listening and learning as this is my first attendance as a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I agree with many of the points made by Mr. Coghlan. I left the meeting to attend the Order of Business in the Dáil, where I attempted to raise the position of Yasser Arafat. As Deputy Durkan said, small things can mean a lot. It is intolerable that the medical treatment of a man who clearly has a very serious health condition is hindered because of the inflexible attitude with regard to freedom of movement.

Senator Norris

To be fair, the Israeli Government has given permission this morning for Yasser Arafat to be moved to hospital.

Chairman

Deputy Higgins made the point that the Israelis added a codicil to the effect that they cannot guarantee that he can return again.

Deputy Allen

That is the crucial issue. The Government and this committee should signal that the Israeli Government should not only allow Yasser Arafat to have medical treatment but give a guarantee that he will be allowed to return to his compound. Not doing so would show an appalling level of insensitivity to him and to the political crisis involved.

I agree with Mr. Coghlan that some members of this committee should visit the Middle East to witness the situation on the ground.

Deputy T. Dempsey

I do not want to reiterate what has been said as I agree with most of it. I did not follow the conflict in that tragic part of the world before I was a politician, and merely had a lay person's interest in it.

I was in New York very recently at an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting. Many other countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Morocco are affected by the Middle East conflict. I do not know if it is within anyone's power to convince both sides that peaceful co-existence is the only way forward, in whatever way it can be achieved, because positions are currently so entrenched.

Having said that, the Palestinians appear to be the victims of incredible military oppression. As we know from our own problems, military might does not solve problems, it only prolongs them. I do not know if it is possible to convince Israel of that because its people are also victims. In Northern Ireland there were two sets of victims for a long time.

What can the European Union do? Can it, for example, take the initiative of appointing a mediator like George Mitchell to sit down with the two sides? Without international intervention we would never have solved the problems here because both sides were too entrenched. There must be a situation whereby both sides will be listened to anew. I am not anti-Semitic but Israel must be convinced that it cannot win by military power, no more than any military power has ever won a conflict. It can only prolong the agony for all.

The rule of law is important and it is easy to brand people terrorists but when governments ignore the rule of law one reaches infinite chaos. I appeal to whoever is here today and whoever is listening, from whatever embassies, as objective onlookers, to recognise that military power achieves nothing. As long as people in Northern Ireland felt they were victims of military power every house was a safe house. When that was taken away people sat down and talked. If we have any influence in the European Union it is time for a new start.

Senator Mooney said it is time to take the gloves off. I do not know what that will achieve but without the intervention of the European Union this can never be solved because the war in Iraq has shifted the focus in America, which is interested in its own peace and homeland security. It is probably one of the greatest tragedies in the conflict between Israel and Palestine that the war in Iraq has meant people becoming preoccupied with matters other than peace in the Middle East. If peace is to be achieved it will depend on the European Union, Palestine and Israel.

Deputy D. Wallace

I welcome Mr. Coghlan to the committee. I did not have an opportunity to read the report. When we spoke about this issue before I said when the response to stone throwers comes from machine guns and tanks, it reflects the imbalance in this situation. It is totally unacceptable. I do not condone wrongdoing on any side. The atrocities in Israel and Palestine are unacceptable. We are looking in from the outside and anything we can do should be done with sensitivity. When one sees Israel ignoring even international laws one senses the magnitude of the problem. I have no hesitation in saying we must try to do whatever we can, with national or international mechanisms. I am under no illusion about the imbalance. The treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis is unacceptable and until they see sense and come to the table the present situation will continue.

Chairman

The representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs will shortly join us.

Deputy Gregory

I apologise to Mr. Coghlan for not being present for his contribution but I was unable to attend. I understand that Deputy Michael D. Higgins and Senator Norris proposed this country should work within the European Union for the application of the human rights conditions attached to the preferential market access granted to Israel under the European Union-Israel association agreement. I strongly support that proposal because as other speakers have said only action in the European Union will influence Israel, if anything could have any influence on it.

For many years I have been appalled at the way much of the world stood by as the most heavily armed and sophisticated army in the world murdered civilians in the Palestinian areas in the occupied territories, almost daily. I do not wish to be seen as anti-Semitic but the people who carry out and direct wars against refugee camps and people's homes are war criminals. There is no other way to describe them. However, there are no international tribunals to deal with them and they are supported, equipped and financed by the United States. There is no way forward except through the European Union and I strongly support the proposal before the committee.

Mr. Coghlan

Christian Aid absolutely supports Israel's right to live in peace and security behind its own borders but the Palestinians have the same right which is not being respected. We differ from Irish Government foreign policy as expressed by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, at the start of the EU Presidency, when he said that the steps in the road map were too great for either side to take. He advocated smaller steps to try to build confidence. We believe the situation is so dire that a confidence-building process, even the construction of a breathing space, will be derailed by action on one side or the other. It is relatively easy for outsiders to see the outlines of a just settlement if that is a two-state solution, and that there must be final status negotiations now. The end must be in sight in any negotiating process for that to hold together long enough to be implemented before it is derailed by factions on one side or the other.

Every peace and conflict situation is different and any analogy is imperfect. We would not want to strain the comparison with Northern Ireland, although there are experiences from which people could learn. In the Irish peace process, apart from two parties on the ground there was two states which acted for each side to the conflict as guarantor and persuader on its behalf. The United States was an external third party, acting as a relatively neutral honest broker, which internationalised the situation. That worked up to a point, after a long time. Nothing like that is happening in the Middle East. Instead, the United States is effectively siding with the more powerful side and the other three parties to the road map, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union are bending over backwards to be balanced and are ignored even then. That is one of the reasons why we call on the European Union to act more seriously as a counter-weight to try to bring symmetry to the situation, although this is not in the report. I urge the committee to act on our two recommendations.

Chairman

We will consider a suitable time for a visit as soon as possible. We had been discussing it at the suggestion of Senator Norris. There is general agreement about the difficulty at present and in doing something useful and valuable but we will listen to the representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs before we make a decision.

Senator Norris

There was fairly general agreement that we should make this request, which is inoffensive. We could put it to a vote.

Chairman

That is correct. The Senator states that we should approach such matters through dialogue and get people working together. Let us hear what the Department of Foreign Affairs has to tell us.

Senator Norris

I am merely making the point that a properly proposed and seconded motion should be tabled before the committee.

Chairman

That is fair enough.