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

Situation in Gaza: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome to the meeting Mr. Tony Mannix who works in the Middle East section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and has appeared before the committee on various occasions. Members of the committee have been concerned for some time about Israeli actions in Gaza. Moreover, the latest development of a possible pull-out of Israeli forces from Gaza means this briefing is particularly timely. The unfortunate illness of Mr. Arafat is also an important, urgent and sad issue. I remind the meeting that members are covered by privilege but that others appearing before the committee are not.

Members of the committee and Christian Aid have recommended that the committee visits the region and prepares a report on the situation as we have done in the case of a number of Ireland's other aid partner countries. It is also proposed that the committee calls 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. Before we conclude the meeting, we wish to make a decision on a visit since we are anxious to make one. I know all the difficulties attendant on such an arrangement but we would undertake such a visit at an appropriate time and reasonably soon since there are so many fluid issues at present. I invite Mr. Mannix to make his presentation on the present position.

Mr. Tony Mannix

I thank the Chairman. It is a great pleasure for me to be here again. I will begin with a general overview of the situation in order to set the context and will examine the issues later in some more detail.

The summer and autumn have not brought any signs of improvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict and violence continues either sporadically or in a major outbreak as in recent weeks in Gaza, when perhaps 140 people were killed, hundreds more injured and great damage done to infrastructure and housing. Since September 2000, when the intifada broke out, more than 3,800 Palestinians and almost 1,000 Israelis have been killed and many thousands on both sides have been severely injured.

Equally worrying about the recent Gaza incursion is the harm done to any prospect of a political settlement or even of resuming negotiations on a political track. There has been no real progress on the road map and the disengagement plan is encountering difficulties. As members can well imagine, this situation continues to be of great concern to the European Union. The General Affairs and External Relations Council issued a concrete statement after its meeting in Luxembourg on 11 October. This meeting came just after the frightful violence in Gaza, the terrorist attacks in Taba and the interview given to an Israeli newspaper by a leading government adviser who stated that the intention of the disengagement plan was to freeze the political process and prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state.

In their conclusions, Ministers condemned all forms of terrorism including rocket attacks into Israel. Members of this committee will recall that it was one of these indiscriminate attacks — the killing two Israeli toddlers — which was the stated reason for the Israeli incursion into Gaza. Ministers called on the Palestinian Authority to take firm actions against those who plan and carry out these attacks. The Ministers recognised that Israel has the right to protect its citizens against terrorism. However, this must be done within the boundaries of international law.

Ministers also took the view that the right of self-defence is accompanied by a duty of restraint. They condemned the disproportionate nature of the Israeli military actions in the Gaza Strip. They went on to call on Israel to put an immediate end to this operation and to fully respect the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Ministers reminded Israel of its obligation to ensure full and secure access for the diplomatic missions and humanitarian organisations. This responds to the serious difficulties in gaining access to Gaza, experienced in particular by the UN Works and Relief Agency.

The Council of Ministers next called upon both parties to end the spiral of violence and implement their obligations. The Council was determined to reject any questioning of the two state solution and it reaffirmed its commitment to a negotiated solution agreed between the parties — not dictated by one party or imposed from outside. Instead, it should be a fair and balanced settlement based on the 1967 borders, subject to mutually agreed changes respecting the interests of both sides which would result in a viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian state existing side by side with an Israel living within recognised and secure borders.

Both sides would achieve their legitimate aspirations through co-operation rather than confrontation. Ministers also reaffirmed that the road map provides the fundamental framework for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They stated again that Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and part of the northern West Bank could represent a significant step towards the implementation of the road map provided that it comprises a full and complete withdrawal and is implemented in accordance with the five elements laid down by the European Council in March.

Responding, in effect, to the Ha’aretz interview, the Council of Ministers stated that the withdrawal must not be an attempt to replace the road map and recalled that settlement activity is contrary to the road map. Finally, the Council underlined its readiness to provide assistance, whether in the field of Palestinian security reform, civil police, general economic aid or the forthcoming Palestinian elections. It is worth recalling that the Quartet, meeting at ministerial level in September in New York, also issued an unambiguous statement which reaffirmed support for the goal of two states. In addition, the Quartet called for Palestinian reform, an end to violence and terrorism, a settlement freeze and the dismantling of settlement outposts and action with respect to the route of the separation barrier.

The continued action of the Quartet is an essential ingredient in finding a way out of this seemingly insoluble conflict. It is clear that the two parties, if left to themselves, are most unlikely ever to come up with a workable and lasting solution. There is not the necessary trust and confidence between the sides. A further complicating factor is that within each camp, the governing authority finds itself confronted by extremists that refuse to face reality and seek only unilateral advantage. There is little room for taking coherent let alone courageous action. This is why an impetus from outside is so necessary.

It is also clear that no one outside actor can provide the comprehensive impetus which is necessary to stimulate action by both Israelis and Palestinians. Hence the importance of the international community uniting in the quartet to achieve these aims. Any positive political action now being taken on the ground is largely unilateral. The Israelis are preparing plans for disengagement and the Palestinians are preparing to hold local elections. However, we would like to see much more happening such as the bilateral engagement by the Israelis and Palestinians with one another on the political track but this is not an easy time for any of the parties. During the summer, Palestinians came unnervingly close to confrontation between themselves and the Palestinian Authority itself fell into disarray from which it has not yet recovered. The near paralysis of the Palestinian Authority and the growing lawlessness in the territories are particularly worrying. They do not in any way help to prepare for an orderly transfer of power when the withdrawal from Gaza takes place.

The current illness of President Arafat, who is an elderly man, is a further complicating factor. Should he leave the scene, it is not at all clear who will succeed him or whether that person will have the stature and authority to hold the Palestinians together or to deliver on any agreement reached with the Israelis. It is clearly a great challenge for the Palestinians. In addition, during the summer and up to this week, Israeli politics has been convulsed by controversy over the very principle of withdrawal. While Prime Minister Sharon has just won a very important and welcome victory in the Knesset, it seems clear his difficulties are by no means over.

Adding to the general air of instability is the continuing and increasingly horrifying conflict in Iraq. There is also the deep uncertainty which is always generated by a presidential election in the United States. When the election is out of the way it may be easier to achieve a refocusing of minds. The EU is actively considering how it can step up its own activities in support of the peace process. The EU high representative, Javier Solana, is working on a plan to assist the implementation of the road map and we are looking forward to receiving the detailed plan which will be considered by EU Ministers. The general outline of this plan is that the focus for EU engagement in the immediate future will be practical support for the Palestinian Authority. This practical support will be focused on four areas, namely, strengthening the authority's ability to provide security and prevent terrorism, political and institutional reform, the continuation of EU economic aid and support for the electoral process.

This plan was welcomed by the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Dr. Nabil Shaath, when he visited Dublin last Thursday. He and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, had a productive exchange of views on the situation in the region. They discussed the prospects for the implementation of the road map, the EU's proposed support for the Palestinian Authority's reform efforts and such issues as the Israeli separation barrier and the recent incursions into Gaza.

The Minister particularly stressed Ireland's continuing support for the two state solution and the road map. He also called for both sides to make a serious effort to implement the measures set out in the road map. He stated that the progress to date had been disappointing and had resulted in a serious breakdown of confidence which had to be overcome. He encouraged the Palestinians to show leadership and demonstrate that there is a willing negotiating partner on the Palestinian side. Dr. Shaath for his part looked to Ireland to continue to press for the two state solution, which we will do. He also pointed to the difficult circumstances in which the Palestinian Authority was trying to operate. However, he expressed determination to move ahead with the necessary measures so that Palestine would carry its weight in the peace process.

Ireland and the EU will emphasise that the current security situation in Israel and the occupied territories is deeply worrying. While Israel has every right to defend its citizens, this must be done within the boundaries of international law and the principle of proportionality. Large-scale house demolitions run counter to the peace process. Assistance programmes must not be obstructed. Security co-operation between Israel and Palestine must be resumed. The Palestinians must conduct their electoral process in accordance with international standards and registration must be facilitated by Israel. The Palestinian Authority must take further measures to strengthen security and the reforms must be put in place and implemented.

Above all, Ireland and the EU will encourage both parties to return to the negotiating table and resume political progress. The cost of further delay will be high. Only a comprehensive settlement which deals fairly with both sides can offer a lasting solution. I am sure all reasonable people will come to see this is the case. Despite the real obstacles blocking the way forward, the road map leading to a two state solution will continue to be backed by the international community, it remains valid and it will win the necessary support to overcome the extremists on both sides.

Senator Mooney

I thank Mr. Mannix who, as always, brings clarity to a complex situation due to his many years of experience at the Middle East desk. My colleagues and I are grateful for his clarification of the position of Ireland and the EU in light of recent developments.

I appreciate that proposals must be couched in diplomatic language and that dialogue is paramount. However, judging from the trend of the debate earlier, there is increasing frustration with Israeli policies, especially the actions of the IDF in the occupied territories. What practical moves can the EU make in terms of its growing strength and influence as a result of enlargement?

A report submitted to the Israeli Government by its own sources, to which I referred earlier, indicated the way forward in the multi-polar world in which we live. It referred to a stronger EU with greater political and economic influence that might have a greater influence over world affairs than the US which could upset the relationship between the US and Israel, which is the latter's strongest partner and friend. Although the report does not suggest that Israel should toe the line because of these trends, does Mr. Mannix see any great significance in the fact that the Israeli Government is becoming increasingly aware of the growing influence of the EU and how can that be translated into real and effective action rather than just diplomatic talk?

Senator Norris

I welcome Mr. Mannix's clear and scrupulously even-handed presentation, which is necessary. I have great sympathies with both sides but, like most Irish people, they tend to shift and favour the underdog when there is a lack of proportion. That has meant a certain transition in my view. It is very important that, at official level, we maintain an impartial and even-handed approach to the situation. It seems it is very much like two people involved in a brawl who, to use a Dublin phrase, have to be dug out of each other, if we can help them to do so.

I am glad Mr. Mannix addressed the interview given in Ha’aretz. It is important to look at the Machiavellian interpretation of what is occurring in Gaza. Yossi Alpher in an interview in Ha’aretz claimed there was a strong possibility that hardline settlers would, “seek to compel the Palestinians to acquiesce in a system of semi-autonomous enclaves surrounded by the remaining settlements”. That should be read in context of the views of the distinguished scholar and professor, Avi Shlaim of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, who is also an Israeli Jewish gentleman. He claims that Mr. Sharon envisages an emasculated and demilitarised Palestinian entity built on less than half the land of the occupied territories with Israel in control of its borders, airspace and water resources. This is a recipe for a ghetto not a free country. While it can be presented as a positive step and it would be good if Israel got out, it is easy for its forces to get back in. I take Mr. Coghlan’s point about the parallels to the Irish situation. However, there were honest brokers, defenders and sponsors on each side and it was even-handed.

The Bush presidency is the disaster for the Middle East because he has torn up international human rights agreements and defied joining the International Criminal Court. This situation of international immorality breeds those human rights violations conducted by the Israeli army. It is not just the Palestinians who have a case. Rachel Cory was bulldozed to death and James Miller was shot and murdered and yet there were no investigations. Under the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dick Spring, a human rights desk was established in Iveagh House. If it is still active, it would be useful for it to monitor human rights abuses in Israel. Does it keep a tally of human rights abuses?

It should be one-handed and I agree with what members said about the bombings. I spend time in the Middle East where I visit Arab and Jewish friends in Israel. I know what it feels like to be afraid to sit in a cafe in Ben Yehuda Street or take the 405 bus that might be sent over a cliff by some fanatical lunatic. I know what it is like to be afraid to go swimming because bombs could be put in wastepaper baskets. I have been in the restaurant with Ezra, just around the corner from our house, where nine students were blown to pieces. With the assistance of the Palestinian representative, Dr. Ali Halimah, I got a statement from Yasser Arafat condemning the use of suicide bombing and an indication that it was counter-productive.

However, house demolitions as a collective punishment are outlawed. There has been the killing of children from both sides. There was a particularly outrageous case in which two toddlers were killed. What did they do? However, the number of civilian casualties on the Palestinian side is grotesquely disproportionate. I salute those members of the Israeli army and air force who have refused to carry out those particular duties of bombing civilians.

Irish and EU human rights policies are contained in our international treaties. What is the use if we cannot see these clauses implemented? The EU-Israel agreement gives preferential treatment to Israel. However, the clause that there should be no human rights violations on a systematic scale is ignored. We are not living up to our responsibility to protect human rights. As Ireland is seen as a neutral state with a colonial past and can identify with the difficulty and misery on both sides, it is appropriate for us to put this issue on the agenda. This would strengthen the position of those within Israel who are working in the human and civil rights area. The Palestinians would like to see it happen as well as those Jewish groups, such as B'Tselem and Ta'ayush. Why can we not examine it? What are we afraid of? Every speaker has suggested that this is a positive way to advance.

Deputy Allen

I thank Mr. Mannix for his clear contribution. It was informative for me as a new member of the committee. I accept that there are atrocities on both sides and that the boundaries of international law have been stretched to an incredible extent. Mr. Mannix has painted a bleaker scenario than I imagined. I am depressed by what he has informed the committee, particularly the lawlessness in Palestine.

He inferred that there was a dangerous political division in Israel. By political division is he referring to civil unrest in Israel? Mr. Mannix said there are four streams of practical support from the EU. Mr. Coghlan said that US policy is unashamedly on the side of the Israelis and that the EU and Russia should act as a counterbalance. What are Mr. Mannix's views on the suggestion that the EU-Israel association agreement for preferential market access should be reviewed?

Deputy Carey

I welcome Mr. Mannix's concise, measured and balanced presentation. Along with some colleagues, I had the opportunity of meeting with Dr. Shaath and representatives from Israeli and Palestinian civil society. Yesterday, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs clarified the Irish position on the two-state policy before the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. This committee voted overwhelmingly to endorse the Irish-EU policy but also expressed concern at the disproportionate use of force by one side against the other. Much of yesterday's discussion centred around the association agreement and what leverage it has that can bring some influence to bear on a possible solution. It is an intractable problem and will get worse before it gets better.

I agree with committee members that we ought to address the flagrant violations of human rights by both sides. One must question whether the Israeli side is ignoring everybody else's view except its own. I do not agree with sanctions and they do not work. There are enough barriers without building more. The EU should be more constructive in its insistence that human rights conditions are adhered to by Israel. In the absence of adherence, the EU and Ireland would then have to review the agreement. I would like Mr. Mannix to give his diplomat's view on what leverage there is.

Deputy T. Dempsey

I support Senator Norris's suggestion that there should be some monitoring of human rights breaches. Part of the problem is that the world's focus has been taken off the tragedy of the Middle East because of Iraq. By monitoring human rights breaches, we might actually refocus.

Senator Norris referred to collective punishment as a crime. Apart from being a crime, it is just stupid as it does not work. I remember from my own history books in school, the same acts by powers in the past left the Irish with a burning sense of injustice. In 100 years a Palestinian will still want to kill someone from Israel because an Israeli soldier bombed his house and he had no involvement in any kind of crime. Likewise, a suicide bomber who kills an innocent member of the Israeli community will create a sense of injustice that continues forever. I do not know if there is anything Mr. Mannix could suggest as to how we could highlight the stupidity of things like collective punishments, the destruction of houses and the incitement to hatred which results from such actions.

I apologise to Mr. Mannix as I am in and out of meetings about a community school in my own little territory and I am afraid that it is as important as the Middle East to me at the moment.

Deputy Durkan

I compliment Mr. Mannix on a very balanced and comprehensive presentation. It would be helpful if we had a printed copy available during the meeting. Long before I was a Member of this House, I visited Golan and Gaza and all these places. Things have unfortunately got worse since. Over 20 years have passed and the situation is much worse now. Lines are much more harshly drawn. I note the points made by various speakers regarding the disproportionality of the casualties. If the casualties were evenly apportioned to both sides, that still would not solve the problem. The situation still remains. There is a combination very similar to that with which we are familiar on this island. There is a combination of history, religion, hatred and retaliation where one wrong deserves another. That does not solve problems. I fully support any proposal which would lead to a calming of the situation so at least some kind of authority could develop.

As I see it, there is a lack of authority on both sides. Yasser Arafat's authority has been undermined for some considerable time. He is not in control, not because of his age or his illness, but because of the disparate groups that he represents. Who speaks for the Palestinians and who speaks with authority? As presented by the media, it would appear that the Palestinian Authority is a run-down authority, with very little resources and an inability to either talk authoritatively to the Israelis or to control its own situation. As a result, its whole standing and status is undermined. The Israeli situation is similar. There is not much sense going over old scores, but the fact remains that Mr. Sharon does not necessarily have the full support of his people either. We have seen demonstrations of that in the past few days. He cannot go further than he is allowed to go. We have seen this repeated again and again over the past 25 to 30 years.

An intervention by the EU would be desirable but I cannot see how it would take the form of a military intervention. It does not have that facility. Something like that was envisaged, but I do not know that it can be done. Advancements can only be made through the human rights area.

I compliment Mr. Mannix on the reiteration of the two-state solution. If we do not have a two-state solution, then where do we go from there? If one side does not recognise the other side's right to exist, what do we do? I have no hang up about one side or the other, but we in Ireland tend to blame the Israelis for it all. It does not work that way and there are two sides to the problem.

There are ingredients on both sides which are volatile and which make it very difficult to achieve any kind of solution. The UN does not have the capacity to feature in that kind of solution, except as observers. I cannot see how the EU can do it, except to monitor the situation. In the kind of battle zone that exists there, how effective can monitoring be? What can one do? One cannot separate the two sides because they will not recognise one's existence. When an atrocity takes place on one side or the other and it does not matter whether it has the imprimatur of the legitimate forces of that state or not, there will be retaliation. That is the way things are. It is the old story of an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth. There will be many toothless and eyeless people but there will be no peace.

Both sides must recognise that they have a choice to either live together or die together. It is as stark as that.

Chairman

We all welcome the contribution which Mr. Mannix has made today. It was very balanced and covered the issues on both sides. I particularly welcome the fact that Mr. Solana, in his plan, will give more practical support to Palestine. It is quite clear that the Palestinian Authority has been in disarray for some time. That does not help. However, there is a need for a programme which will help the Palestinian Authority to get its act together and to see that there are benefits for its own people. This assistance can come from the EU and from the increased practical support for Palestine proposed by Mr. Solana.

I am very conscious that the elections in the US have a significant bearing on the situation. Elections anywhere have a bearing on issues when they occur close to election time. We will hopefully have a result next week and can get back to planning for the coming four-year period. What concerns us is whether we in Ireland can do any more. This is a small country and can identify with the problems. We have the experience and the history of similar types of conflicts. We are anxious to help in any way we can. We certainly will follow up on the visit and will seek the Department's assistance in that regard when the time comes. However, we want to make it worthwhile. I note they call for a visit that will include a report on the situation. I would be happy with that. We should have a report on all visits, particularly on important ones such as this.

Another matter that has become clear is that human rights abuses occur on both sides. We have to be careful. If we are to build up support for the Palestinians in practical terms, that is the first thing that should be done. The European Union, Mr. Solana or the Council of Ministers should not hold back on that. There is an enormous need for confidence building on both sides.

With that, I thank the Department for its contribution today. Perhaps the committee may have a copy of the presentation, afterwards. Mr. Mannix might like to reply, at this stage.

Deputy Allen

I am sorry, but I forgot to ask one question. I attempted, earlier, to raise an issue in the Dáil on the Order of Business, but perhaps it was not the appropriate place, concerning recent reports on the ill-health of Mr. Yasser Arafat and the reluctance of the Israeli government to allow him to be treated in a location other than where he is at present. Even more important is the lack of a guarantee that he could return if he recovered. Has the Government or the Department given its views to the Israeli Government on that issue, if it has an opinion on it?

Mr. Mannix

My thanks to all the members of the committee. It is clear we all share a great sense of frustration at what is happening and the lack of progress in this long conflict and in particular since the war of 1967 and the occupation of Palestinian lands since then. There has been tremendous human suffering on both sides. It is a frustrating and harrowing situation and we all share a sense that we wish to do more to help resolve it. It is fair to say the European Union has, for many years, tried its utmost to do what it can. The outside world has an important role in all of this. As I said earlier in the presentation, the Israelis and the Palestinians left to themselves stand little chance of resolving the situation. They are too close to it. There is no confidence. It simply does not seem to work. Hence, it is extremely important that the international community should bring to bear all the influence it can.

The type of influence the European Union may bring to bear shows itself in a number of different dimensions. We want to influence the immediate situation of the Palestinian people and to improve it. We want to see an end of conflict. The new approach comes under two wings, tactical and practical on one side and the strategic and political on the other. Many members of the committee have spoken about the question of human rights. There is a human rights unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs. It monitors human rights abuses around the world, as do the regional desks, including my own Middle East desk.

Not only the Department of Foreign Affairs but the United Nations and various other international bodies monitor and report on the situation in the occupied territories. This is discussed at the UN General Assembly every year and at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, at around February. There is careful monitoring and various bodies, whether the EU, the UN General Assembly or the UNHCR in Geneva, all speak out on the subject. We see serious violations of human rights and of international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. There is collective punishment, large-scale house demolition, as mentioned in my presentation, targeted assassinations etc. The general conditions of life of the Palestinian people cause great hardship for them. It is very wrong and the situation is not getting better. The separation barrier has made the position even worse.

There is a great awareness that this is a serious situation and the European Union, and Ireland, have spoken out countless times deploring and condemning these practices and calling for an end to them. As Senator Norris said, we all have a great sympathy with the people who have fallen victim to terrorism. I have been in a quiet street in Jerusalem where a bus was blown up. It seemed a highly inappropriate setting, a quiet residential street, not the type of place where one expects such atrocities to occur. We recognise that Israel and every country has the right and duty to protect its citizens. However, this has to be done within the boundaries of international law and with common-sense and decency. The excesses that occasionally occur, and the abuses of human rights are both wrong in themselves, and fuel terrorism. They are an incitement to hatred. These are points that we, and the European Union make time and again, whether in regard to this situation or to others around the world.

We have a particular opportunity to address these issues with the Israelis under the EU-Israeli association agreement. Article 2 of this agreement has a human rights clause on which these discussions are based. People suggest from time to time that with so many abuses taking place the European Union should take action under the agreement, perhaps to introduce sanctions or suspend it. The question is somewhat academic in this sense: it would require the consensus of all 25 member states of the European Union before that could be done. That is not going to happen. It is not on the agenda.

There are several countries that would disagree with such a course, and not always for the reasons that might immediately spring to mind. There is concern that if the European Union was to take action of that kind, it would undermine its capacity to engage in dialogue with the Israelis. There could be an Israeli reaction, which would refuse any role whatsoever to the European Union in the Middle East peace process. I have to stress that we cannot really force ourselves into the peace process. No outside party can do that except by direct military power, which is not what the European Union does. We have to be acceptable to both sides if we are to enter into dialogue with them. That is why we have to have an even-handed, balanced and calm approach to these matters. That is why many member states of the European Union are highly reluctant to undertake an action that might be quite far-reaching in its consequences and risk the outcome of the EU's role in all of this being greatly diminished or even ended. For all those reasons, it is simply not practical politics. There will not be a consensus, at present. Who knows what will happen in the future? However, it is clear there will be no consensus among the 25 member states of the Union to take such action.

On the tactical and practical side of the approach, I was talking about how the European Union can try to influence the situation on the ground to improve the plight of the Palestinian people. We also take a number of practical steps. The European Union is the largest provider of economic assistance in the form of aid to the Palestinians. We are trying to help them in many ways. We will step up our assistance. As new situations arise, new problems must be addressed. I specifically have in mind the need for reform and rebuilding of the Palestinian security services, which have been severely degraded during the recent years of military action. We are also talking about assistance in the electoral process in Palestine. Those are very practical things that we can and will do. The division I make between tactical and practical on the one hand and strategic and political on the other is a little artificial, since one spills over into another.

As we have already noted, human rights violations and collective punishment fuel terrorism. On the political side, the European Union encourages both sides to look to the future and a two-state solution, realising that it offers them a way out of an unending cycle of violence that leads nowhere and cannot be in anyone's interest. The road map was of European inspiration. I have already said in my statement that there has not been the progress that we wanted; there has been very little. Nevertheless, the road map and the two-state solution offer the only framework within which there is any possibility of arriving at a solution. If one were to reassemble and repackage the road map, one would still have to have all those elements which are necessary to build confidence and move forward in stages to a final settlement.

We too have seen the various articles by Dov Weissglas and others that speak either of freezing the political process, preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state, or the emergence of such a state consisting of semi-autonomous enclaves. Some people have used the word "Bantustanisation". That is certainly not what the European Union has in mind. The EU, and the Quartet, which involves the Americans, always speaks about a viable, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state — not one split up into little pieces like crumbs on the table. That is not the kind of two-state solution that the European Union or the Quartet looks to. The EU does what it can to bring balance to the debate, but we must be quite clear that there is a need for it to work with its partners in the Quartet. No outside party, be it the EU, the Americans, the UN or the Russians, is able to bring its influence to bear on both Israelis and Palestinians. We need a collective effort. Without it, we will not get anywhere. We must work within that framework and ensure that it survives and remains intact rather than being split open. We cannot return to the situation that obtained before the Quartet was set up, when we did not have an adequate way of bringing that collective effort into focus.

I very much agree with what was said, that the Irish experience of the peace process in Northern Ireland gives us a unique insight not shared by many other European countries. It is very much appreciated in the Middle East that we speak from our own experience and that we have an understanding of the very real difficulties in the way of the peace process. We can share that experience with people and do that at many levels.

There was a project during the Irish Presidency involving the Glencree Reconciliation Centre bringing together Israeli and Palestinian politicians. It can be done at that sort of person-to-person, NGO level. It can be done by the Government and members of the Oireachtas. Committee members are now considering visiting the region, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and its embassies abroad will be very happy to assist in any way we can. There is a very great need for confidence building. Visits of that kind help and can be arranged at all levels. The Government's policy is to encourage people to try to take the kinds of steps which will increase confidence rather than trying to do everything in one go. We must build confidence to permit greater, more strategic progress. Ireland will continue to press that very much within the European Union.

On both sides one needs a functioning Government able to deliver on its promises. The Israeli Government is experiencing serious difficulties at present with its disengagement plan. We have all seen on the television large numbers of demonstrators outside the Knesset on the eve of the vote. There was a "referendum" among Likud Party members. There have been calls for a referendum among the Israeli public, something that Prime Minister Sharon has rejected on the grounds that it would lead to an incalculable delay. It is clear that Israeli society is split. I am not suggesting that it will take on any more dramatic form, but it makes it much more difficult for Prime Minister Sharon to proceed with the disengagement plan, which has been welcomed by the European Union, provided it conforms to the five elements that the Council laid down.

On the Palestinian side, one is dealing with people who have been occupied for more than 30 years and face all the difficulties entailed. They have not been able to have a functioning state, and their leader, a man of great symbolic stature and prestige, President Arafat, is seriously ill. He needs treatment. I understand that teams from various countries are going to visit him in Ramallah. The European Union long ago, as far back as and perhaps earlier than the March 2002 European Council in Barcelona, called for a lifting of all the restrictions on President Arafat. We very much agree that President Arafat should be able to go abroad for medical treatment in the knowledge that his return home will not be obstructed.

I hope I have not left everyone with too bleak an assessment of the situation. It would be dishonest of me to suggest that it is anything other than very difficult. However, I hope the kinds of things happening at the moment, such as the movement towards the disengagement plan and continuing reform in the Palestinian apparatus, will build the confidence that we all know is necessary before more strategic, long-range steps can be taken. Ireland will certainly continue, together with its EU partners, to work towards that end.

Senator Norris

I think the Chairman would agree that it would be rather foolish for me to push the resolution that I put before the House. Only our two newest — though very valuable — members and I are present, but I will table it again.

I thank Mr. Mannix for his very clear, balanced and professional view. The committee should note that he, with all his diplomatic skills, acknowledged a series of human rights conditions is attached to the external association agreement. Second, there are serious violations of the Geneva Convention and serious and numerous human rights violations. If one puts those two things together, the conclusion seems inescapable that, if we are honourable, the conditions should be operated or, if not, we must tear them up or not bother inserting them. They are obviously absolutely useless, impotent and meaningless. I accept his practical situation as a diplomat. He made the point that there were 25 countries and that we needed unanimity and were unlikely to get it. He also said that it might complicate the situation and offend the Israelis.

However, it would make them sit up, particularly if countries started working towards that. I am not suggesting we should immediately demand implementation. We should take them out of the closet and examine them, asking whether we are serious about human rights. Perhaps we are not, but if that is the case, we should stop prating about them. We should not include them in international treaties if we decide that they are not operative. I know the argument about constructive engagement. It is made all over the place, and members of the committee will recall when it was made about East Timor. It took Tom Hyland, an unemployed bus driver from Ballyfermot, to cut through that. It was that, rather than pussyfooting around, that got things done. I will ask that these aspects be noted. We have the facts from Mr. Mannix. He has given his utterly skilful diplomatic interpretation of them and I respect that, but I do not agree with it. We committee members are politicians while Mr. Mannix is the professional observer and diplomat. He is here to give us his view, but it is up to us to push what we see in terms of policy. I do not think anyone could avoid noticing that every single speaker spoke quite constructively and positively on this issue.

I support the proposed Middle East visit. I am not sure if I would be invited to take part or if I would be able to if I were invited. I strongly urge that in addition to visiting Gaza the members who travel should visit south Hebron. I can make contacts for them there. It is important those children be protected by an international visit and I suggest it should take place.

I am happy to pass on to Mr. Mannix a note I made of a telephone conversation in the aftermath of one of the scandalous attacks where the settlers were protected and those who were being attacked were not protected by the police and army of the Israeli state. Mr. Mannix might pass on that note to the human rights desk.

I agree with everything that has been said about atrocities. I deplore them. Like Mr. Mannix, I could easily have fallen victim to them. I would not welcome that. Lamentably, on the Israeli side, and despite the resistance to these policies by many brave Israeli citizens, these are being conducted by the Israeli state. That is where we have leverage, because of the international instruments.

Chairman

I thank the Senator. We have had an excellent discussion with very valuable points being made, on which we will try to act in so far as we can. I thank Mr. Mannix for attending. He has always made himself available to the committee and he has a close involvement and sense of balance regarding the actions involved.

We feel that Ireland should be able to play an important part. Following this discussion we will examine how we as Members of the Oireachtas and members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs can play such a part. I thank Mr. Mannix again for his informative briefing.