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.