On behalf of the committee I welcome His Excellency Daniel Megiddo, the Israeli ambassador, and Mr. Isaac Herzog and Mr. Amir Peretz, distinguished members of the Knesset. Mr. Herzog may have been here before. His father was President of Israel. I invite the delegation to address the meeting and then we can have an open discussion. The delegation is most welcome and we are delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the current situation.
Visit of Israeli Delegation.
Mr. Isaac Herzog
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee and I welcome our ambassador. I am the Labour Party Whip in the Israeli Parliament. I served as general secretary of the government in the Barak administration. With me is Mr. Amir Peretz, a very distinguished member of the Labour Party. He is head of the general federation of trade unions in Israel, a very powerful position. He is also a contender for the leadership of the Israeli Labour Party and for premiership in the next few months. We have come to learn about your partnership experience and we are very happy to tell you about our situation in Israel.
My father was Chaim Herzog, President of Israel. He was born in Belfast and grew up in Dublin. He paid a State visit to Ireland at the end of the 1980s and came to the Dáil. My grandfather, Rabbi Isaac Herzog, was the Chief Rabbi of Ireland and later the Chief Rabbi of Israel. He was very much involved in the fight for independence here and is very much revered. My family is commemorated here in many sites, including a beautiful centre in this city. I am very happy to be here and I want you to know that you have friends in Israel. The feeling that there are no friendships here is not true.
Mr. Peretz emigrated with his family at the age of four from Morocco to Israel. He was badly wounded while serving with the army. Following a two-year recovery process in hospital he turned from farming to politics and ran to become mayor of a town in the Negev on the border with Gaza. He will tell you about his experience of living daily in a area bombarded by Palestinian missiles. He thereafter became a member of the Knesset in the Labour list with Yitzak Rabin as the leader. He was later elected head of the unions. He is a very special person is Israeli public life and has an interesting agenda on war and peace which would probably interest the committee.
We come from a parliament which is one of the most fascinating and diverse in the world. We have parties from the most extreme left, including Arab Muslim fundamentalist parties, to the most extreme right, parties which are on the verge of illegitimacy in respect of some opinions. Since Israeli democracy is so intense, so broad, so spicy, the voice of democracy is what rules our country. We have an extremely strong supreme court, one of the most liberal in the world, and an extremely vociferous and intense journalistic and media world. We are all involved in politics.
The two main issues that face us today are the disengagement plan which we as the main opposition party support wholeheartedly. Prime Minister Sharon, the leader of the right in Israel, has made an incredible U-turn in calling for disengagement, pulling out of settlements in Gaza and leaving the place to be ruled by the Palestinians. It is an incredible process which will culminate in a peak of clashes within the Jewish camp as well. What he is doing demands respect. He is surviving politically from week to week by splitting his own party in this process.
The other agenda which is being discussed in our political life is the social economic agenda where we differ tremendously from the government. On this we object to the government and we may reach a peak next week in a confidence vote which may topple the government and lead us to elections. The picture is extremely varied and provides for interesting opportunities.
We are all interested in what is going on in the Palestinian camp. We are extremely supportive of the Palestinian election process, the democratic process. We would encourage and support wholeheartedly anything that would facilitate the holding of an election.
Mr. Amir Peretz
I thank the Chairman, the ambassador and all the members of the committee. We are very happy to have the opportunity to explain the position in our country. In Israel when you say left and right it does mean the same as in other countries. If you ask the man in the street whether he is left or right, he will immediately think about his position regarding the Palestinian people. He does not think about the economy or other issues. The situation is so complicated that the Prime Minister wants to push the disengagement plan but half of his party votes against him in parliament. He has 46 members in parliament, a third of the total, but half of them vote against him. If he want to pass some decision about disengagement he needs the support of the opposition. That cannot continue. We are now moving towards the budget debate and we have an agenda which is not similar to that of the government. We do not want to vote against the government because we do not want to bring down the disengagement process. A new election to the Palestinian Authority and the disengagement plan could represent an important chance for the whole area. If the Palestinians vote for new leaders, it will be an opportunity to prove to the whole world that they can take responsibility in that area. When the Israeli army leaves the Gaza Strip, the question will be whether this will be the start of the peace process.
We come from the peace camp and we know that after the disengagement plan the Palestinians must ensure the level of terror is decreased. If that does not happen, those of us who supported disengagement will be told that the Palestinians have not the power to take responsibility. For me this is very important because I live with my family near the border with Gaza. I have a very good relationship with many Palestinian leaders and I want to support peace. It is not easy for someone like me, a former mayor of this town, to support the disengagement process because many citizens of my town think that after the disengagement there will be more missiles than before.
This is a very important moment. I believe in peace and we do not have any alternative. Israelis do not have to live in the occupied territory. An independent Palestinian country is in the interest not only of Palestinians but also of Israel. I hope that in the end the peace camp in Israel will be strong after the disengagement plan and that sometime we will return to power and continue the process.
I welcome our guests and wish them an enjoyable stay and a fruitful exchange of views. I thank them for their opening remarks. It is particularly important that they should be with us when the focus of the world will be on the Middle East over the next couple of years. That interest will focus around the new regime. There is a particular responsibility on the Israeli parliament and administration because of the need for magnanimity and to give leadership at this new dawn. Whether it will be positive or negative we have yet to see. The greater responsibility will certainly be on the Israeli administration to concede in areas and at times when ordinarily it would not concede. The recent death of Yasser Arafat has created a certain vulnerability among Palestinian people and elections must take place.
I am not an expert on Middle East affairs, other than what one reads, hears and observes from time to time. The emphasis should be on looking forward rather than dwelling on what happened in the past. It will necessary for you in looking forward to recognise the possibility of doing business with the new leadership and to realise that if the past remains relevant the future will be poisoned.
The divisions between left and right are understandable in an area of conflict. We have had a similar situation in this island and we have experience in the northern part of the island which has some parallels. We have not yet achieved the ultimate in resolving our problems. If and when we do, the ultimate may well be a compromise with which both sides may disagree to some extent. The alternative to a compromise and some kind of settlement is worse. Whether we like it or not, the situation in the Middle East has been a festering sore for many years and now is the time to deal with it.
Mr. Herzog
We absolutely concede the points the Deputy has made, especially in his conclusion. The first item on the agenda at the election will be the question of giving a push to the Palestinian Authority. The Prime Minister has very much encouraged the process. His speeches with respect to what he expects from the Palestinians have been mild and moderate.
Israel is very interested in a democratic process which will result in a new Palestinian Authority. In 1996 there was an extremely successful process with over a million voters, 700 candidates, 1,700 polling stations and 500 international supervisors. We would like to see the same again but we do not want to take part in anything in which we are not deemed to have an interest. This is the game we have to play. There is always a security consideration. While we expect a reduction in terror, we have seen suicide attacks, including one this month in Tel Aviv. This is a problem.
I too welcome the delegation and wish them a happy stay. I am interested to hear more about the perspective of the Labour Party in the event of a government of national unity emerging or a government in which the Labour Party would play a significant part.
How do you interpret the road map process in which the European Union, Russia, the United States and the United Nations are active participants? Do you see that as a way forward if you were in government? What are the barriers? This has been treading water, at best. Some say it is a dead duck as far as the American administration is concerned. Ireland as part of the European Union would be strongly committed to pursuing the road map. I believe it would be unfortunate if it were discarded. I see very little commitment from the present Israeli administration to facilitate in any way its advancement.
If the Labour Party were in government, what would be its attitude to the wall, barrier, defence — whatever you care to call it? Would it recommend a change of policy in relation to the erection of that wall, which most of us here would see as a serious barrier to the development of a normal democratic process? We recognise the democratic system that Israel has but in the area of criminal rights and the promotion of a functioning democracy in Palestine, some of us have difficulty in understanding how the provision of a fence, a wall or whatever you call it facilitates in any way the functioning of democracy in that area.
I join others in welcoming the delegation. Particularly as President of Labour Party, I am delighted to meet other members of the family of Labour around the world. This is a very valuable visit and I listen with great care to what is being said, and I have to say that I assume what we say will be received in the same way. I say this in the presence of the Israeli ambassador.
I have had a very unfortunate experience arising from our last discussion on the Middle East in this committee. A letter was transmitted to me by the leader of my party, the Labour Party. A leading member of the community here in Dublin wrote to him purporting to give a description of Labour Party policy as it had been enunciated by me at this committee. You met the leader of the Labour Party yesterday and I find that this is a matter which the ambassador and I can discuss and clarify. It would be very disturbing if, for example, something said here at a meeting were distorted. The letter mentioned among other things that my outline of intended Labour Party policy "in the event that your party should be part of the next Government is very disturbing and in particular his proposal that diplomatic relations between Ireland and Israel would be severed and their embassy closed". The writer continues in that vein.
Mr. Daniel Megiddo
It is not the ambassador. A citizen wrote.
I did not say it was the ambassador. I said I would like to discuss it with the ambassador. I will be very clear so that there is no basis for misinterpretation. It is a matter of principle and of etiquette. I find valuable the views we have heard and the discussion my party had yesterday.
Could I suggest that if there is a problem of translation we could wait while the matter is translated and our distinguished visitors could listen?
Mr. Herzog
No problem — there is no need for interpretation. Why do we need interpretation?
I thought you were translating for Mr. Peretz.
Mr. Herzog
No, I am explaining the background to the letter story to my distinguished colleague.
My point is a plea. I found the talks yesterday valuable, as they were summarised to me. I accept them as sincere. I accept what we are saying today as equally valuable. I am simply asking that what we say should be accepted in the same way as a joint concern for us to go forward.
This arose in our consideration of the trade agreement between the European Union and Israel in which many members of the committee here, in the course of hearing a report on the consequences of the wall, suggested we should examine the human rights conditionality that attached. That was blown out of all proportion and hence we had some difficulties.
There is a very valuable point in what has been said by Mr. Peretz when he seeks to draw attention to the importance of construing the Gaza withdrawal in perspective. It is very insightful. I appreciate the difficulty he would have in seeking to decide what is happening. If it was an end point, if for example it was dissociated from future developments in relation to the West Bank, one would draw a negative conclusion. If it was an end point it would hardly be helpful in relation to the road map. If, however, the withdrawal from Gaza of about 8,000 could be made consistent with the road map and could be used as a model in relation to the West Bank, then one could construe it entirely positively.
The Chairman will be aware that where we have discussed this issue we are also trying to see our way through and to be of as much assistance as we can. The most recent report to this committee was from Christian Aid which dealt specifically with matters relating to the wall. Mr. Peretz knows it better; he is closer to the reality than I could ever be. That report mentions what is happening to communities that have been divided and the difficulty of harvesting, for example.
It is very encouraging that Mr. Peretz speaks of two states which can be assured of their security. I presume he is speaking of two viable states. The concept of a viable Palestinian state at peace would be a great gift to the Palestinians and would be welcomed by them. Israel would be able to get on with politics without having to give continual hegemony to issues of security.
This committee receives reports and we are trying to be fair. We have been at pains to condemn unequivocally the loss of life in Israel following a suicide bombing or act of terrorism. My party does so, and has done so. I have had experience of people going on record to say they do not accept my words as sincere in this regard, which I have found very upsetting. I am committed to peace in the Middle East and I believe we should be able to discuss these matters in this committee and be just to international law and the rights of the Palestinian people, without its being perceived in any sense as an attack on Israel. Those who distort anything that happens here are not friends of either Israel or Palestine. It would less than honest if I did not dispose of that matter at such a meeting as this, which I welcome.
Mr. Peretz
We hope we can give a short answer to such a very complicated question. We are very sorry that we are not in power. We have not a majority in parliament. We have to be realistic. We want the peace process and the road map. We think the Prime Minister, Mr. Sharon, will make the first step. If we can get power at the next election, we can take the next step in the West Bank. The Palestinians have to understand that the terror works against the peace camp in Israel. It does not matter what I think or you think. When the citizens come to vote, they vote against us. If we could get a short time in government, it could be very good for the peace process. The Labour Party wants to find a way to push Mr. Sharon in these first steps but we also worry about the end of this disengagement plan. Will it be Gaza first or Gaza last? That is the big question.
Regarding the wall or fence, we have another policy. The line will be in the end the border between the two countries. It will have to be by agreement. Even if we do not like the wall, we have to be honest that it stops the bombers. The route of the wall is not the end of the question. It will be a point of negotiation when we sign the final peace agreement.
Mr. Herzog
I would like to answer a few questions. With respect to the wall, the fence, we have been witnessing a horrendous wave of suicide bombings, a phenomenon that is almost unrecognised in the world. I do not wish anybody to experience what it is to live under such circumstances. In March 2002 we suffered 150 deaths and there was no other means but to enter the Palestinian areas to dismantle terrorist plants. We managed to reduce by two thirds the entry of suicide bombers, who came in daily. We were left in a position where about 30% were successful in detonating bombs in buses, schools, coffee shops and shopping malls, everywhere that normal life is carried on.
The outcry for a fence came from the peace camp. It was our peace camp which demanded the erection of a fence, a physical barrier, as there is no technological means, no laser beam, no satellite dish that could stop a woman with 10 kilos on her back walking over the hills, entering a coffee shop in Haifa where families were having lunch, Jews and Arabs, paying the bill and exploding the bomb, killing all of them.
We demanded the wall. The only difference we have with the government is on the track. We viewed it as preventing constant armed attack and the entry of insurgents. Along the northern track of 110 km, which is adjacent to the border of 1967, there has been zero entry of terrorists since then. The big debate is on the southern and central tracks. These are the point of debate in the International Court of Justice and the Israeli supreme court. Fortunately the Israeli supreme court had limited some of the scope of the track. It considered all aspects — the Palestinians, the Jews, the Israelis. At times we have to put walls between two communities, no matter how painful it is. I know of walls in Belfast as well. We hate it and we would like to live in peace. We believe it is demountable, it is provisional, it is not forever. Unfortunately we could not find any other means.
The road map is agreed upon by the whole international community and it is a platform. We in Labour were much more proactive. We initiated Oslo and we wanted to continue with the peace process. The contours of a viable Palestinian state side by side with a viable defensible Jewish state are clear, but it depends on sufficient power in the Palestinian camp to contain insurgency. Any painful compromise would get 90% support among the Israeli public.
I welcome the delegation. For me it is very interesting and encouraging to hear their obvious commitment to peace. Mr. Peretz made a very important point when he said peace is imperative, that there is not an alternative.
Mr. Herzog, with his Irish heritage, is eminently suited to be a peace broker. The lesson of Irish history is that military might never subdues people who believe they have a just cause. Neither does terrorism subdue people. There has to be an understanding. Mr. Herzog's father was born in a country which was very divided and had bitterly divided communities, but now they have learnt to share power in government and the quest for peace. I believe we are close to a breakthrough in writing that in stone.
Obviously Israel has to allow for the rule of law and human rights. That has to be paramount in any search for peace and it must be nearly impossible for Palestinians at this stage, with the best will in the world, to enforce peace in their country. Like Deputy Durkan, I hear that their police force has to be depleted because of the actions of the Israeli army. I am not taking sides but we have to try to understand the difficulties. Terrorism cannot win, nor can military might.
It is good to have you here and we will do anything we can, particularly as members of the European Union, to support your obvious quest for peace. I hope the walls will not be permanent. We have torn down walls in Europe and I know this is your aspiration.
I recommend that the delegation study the origins, implementation and completion of the Good Friday Agreement. We needed outsiders to come in and to broker peace between us. I know that you will not be averse to outsiders helping you to achieve peace. It is wonderful to hear your commitment to peace and I am happy to be a member of the committee which listened to it today.
I also welcome the distinguished visitors and the ambassador and tell the members of the Knesset that they are ably and skilfully represented here by Mr. Megiddo. Mr. Herzog said that we cannot have any real understanding of the situation in Israel with the tragic suicide bombings which we all condemn. I have some slight understanding of that because for many years I spent three months at least in Israel. The cafe where I used to wait at the bus stop was blown up and an entire family was killed. A number of students were killed in a restaurant that Ezra and I used to visit, just around the corner from our house. I do know about it and I abhor it.
At the same time, as a friend of Israel I have to return to the question of human rights and the systematic violation of human rights. I have to tell you that what you have heard here this afternoon is very mild compared to what is said in your absence. I welcome the fact that you are from the Labour Party and what was said by Mr. Peretz in particular about the wall, which is illegal under international law. There is not a shadow of doubt about that. It is a violation and nothing other than a systematic land grab. I am very glad to hear that you oppose the line of the wall, because that is a problem. Of course Israel has a right to protect itself on its own territory, but it is a violation of international law to build it where it is.
I have seen it and it is horrifying. The way in which it is administered is a scandal. The gates are opened arbitrarily, capriciously, regarding the inflow and outflow of personnel, including people who are seriously ill. I have waited in a queue while a man suffering from a heart attack in an ambulance was held up. I know there are difficulties. I understand the reference to a woman approaching a checkpoint and so on.
The people I endorse in Israel and the people who are the conscience of Israel are the very distinguished doctors, the Physicians for Human Rights, whom I saw queueing in the rain and the mud at Kalkelia and going in to treat Arabs free of charge, the 30 Israeli airforce jet pilots who refused to obey orders which were plainly illegal, some of the soldiers who have refused to obey orders that are illegal and have been jailed. I also applaud the supreme court in finding that it was necessary to revise the line of the wall, but I would scarcely describe a supreme court who balked at putting a total ban on the application of torture as the most liberal in the world. That certainly would not have occurred here.
The question of Northern Ireland was raised and I agree very much with what was said. Barbarism was committed in this island within the past few years. Eventually what has happened is that one of the two communities which was seriously disadvantaged has come up to the level of the other. A very important phrase that I would ask you to take back to Israel is ‘mutual esteem' or ‘parity of esteem'. Apart from persons of goodwill like yourselves, I do not see that in many pronouncements or attitudes of the present government. I do not see parity of esteem.
In terms of casualties it is running at four to one against the Palestinians. There was the bulldozing of Rachel Corry, of which I am sure you are aware. There was no proper inquiry. It was perfectly clear that the civilian reporter, Jamie Miller, was unarmed, yet he was shot. A colleague of mine will bring up the case of a small girl who was shot. I know of so many cases where young Arab children have been killed and no proper inquiry of any kind held. That is not in my opinion acceptable, nor is collective punishment which is against the Geneva Convention.
I say to Mr. Herzog, as a lawyer, that what I worry about for Israel is that under the malign penumbra cast by the Bush administration, with an Attorney General who thinks the Geneva Convention does not apply to Americans, the same kind of thing can happen to Israel. I asked a direct question to Mr. Sharon in the Knesset about the fact that Mr. Ehud Olmert bravely attempted to put on the agenda of the cabinet the liquidation — a very sinister word to anybody who knows the history of Europe — of Mr. Arafat. The answer I got was that I need not worry about him. I replied that I was not worried about him but about what has happened to a country that I love where this kind of material can be considered. An assassination can be regarded as a legitimate instrument of policy. Of course I am not saying this to attack you because I know you are in the Labour Party. These are my concerns.
I commend to you the report by Christian Aid, in which the Israeli Professor Avi Schleim of St. Andrew's College stated:
The subsequent decline of the Oslo peace process after the assassination of Rabin was caused more by Israeli territorial expansion than by Palestinian terrorism. Israeli settlements on the West Bank which Sharon's government continues to expand are the root of the problem.
Professor David Kretschmer, a senior expert in international law in Israel, in the Hebrew University I think, stated: "Establishing civilian settlements in occupied territory in order to further the economic or political interests of the occupying powers is incompatible with the fourth Geneva principle."
Because the parallel has been made with Northern Ireland, I draw to your attention a case I raised with the ambassador, namely, the systematic abuse of dwellers in the villages around south Hebron. They are attacked routinely by settlers. No protection is afforded. They are stoned, beaten, attacked with knives and sticks on their way to school. This is a sinister echo of a very similar situation here in Belfast, a city known to Mr. Herzog's family.
There are many other things I could say but I will leave it at that. I emphasise that it is a question of civil rights and that everybody who raises the question of civil and human rights for the Palestinians and for the Israelis does so in the spirit of friendship. The Jewish people throughout history have been renowned for their respect for life.
I join the Chairm an and members in welcoming the Israeli delegation. It is a great opportunity to exchange views on a very important topic. I am particularly glad to see the son of Chaim Herzog here because he was brought was on Dublin's South Circular Road, on Bloomfield Avenue. I know the house and it was part of my constituency. I am very happy to meet him.
I want to return to the issue of the wall. I do not pretend to be an expert on that part of the world. There has been a very clear judgment of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of this wall and its routing. Nobody is denying the legality of any state defending itself. In all our black days in Northern Ireland, neither the British nor the Irish erected a wall. It may have been done by communities but it was never done by either government. The EU Presidency in a declaration on 20 July expressed opposition to the route of the barrier. The EU has taken on board the judgment of the International Court of Justice. My fear is that if Israel continues to ignore the judgment of that court, relations with the EU will be harmed. I hope that will not be the case. The court judgment is very clear that the wall is illegal, as is the route, and something must be done. If not, relations will be significantly damaged and I foresee further trouble. I met an Israeli at the first meeting of EuroMed parliamentary assembly. Israel holds one of the vice-chairmanships and I am on the economic commission. I hope that the message will be received. We all recognise the need for self-defence but Israel must listen to the International Court of Justice.
I have a very simple question regarding Mordecai Vanunu. He may have sought asylum from one EU member state. If he seeks asylum from a European Union member state which decides to grant it, will he be allowed to leave Israel?
I will be succinct. The members of the delegation may find what I have to say unqualified and they will forgive me. They do not know me but everybody here knows that any suggestion that I am anti-Semitic would be both wrong and profoundly offensive. It is profoundly offensive and no good to Israel to start campaigns to the effect that everybody in western Europe who is strongly critical of Israel's actions in the occupied territories is anti-Semitic. It does not help Israel.
We in Ireland had a campaign of the most appallingly brutal violence, carried out by people who claimed to represent the same values that I believe in. People were taken out of cars and asked if they were Catholic or Protestant, murdered if they were Catholic and let go if they were Protestant.
And vice versa.
Of course. If the governments of two civilised states had not felt restrained by what we regard as the norms of civilised behaviour, we could have had targeted killings, assassinations, in Dundalk. We could have had a land grab in south Armagh or north Monaghan to simplify the complications of a very porous Border. We could have had various other activities, the taking out of people. If we did not have governments governed by the norms of civilised behaviour, Gerry Adams would be dead, Martin McGuinness would be dead, Ian Paisley would be dead and a number of other people would be dead because they would be regarded by somebody on some side as the agent of terrorism.
The fundamental problem many of us have is that we believe we are entitled to judge Israel by the standards of free democracies, not by the standards of those who have never had the chance, the opportunity or the tradition of building that. When the British Government in 1972 made a fundamental mistake in dealing with the Bloody Sunday killings, far from ending terrorism they created 20 years of terrorism. We spent 20 years retrieving the situation because 13 civilians were killed under, to put it mildly, the most dubious circumstances. I have a personal view on that but it does not need to be said here.
You may well succeed in the short term in suppressing suicide killing and suppressing travel by building a wall, but if that wall is in the territory of other people rather than in your own, you are sowing the seeds of future conflict. It will not go away until people trust each other. I saw many terrifying things when I visited Israel and the occupied territories during the first Intifada, but the most terrifying thing I saw was the young men and women sitting on the street near where I was drinking, carrying submachine guns when they were in civilian clothes because they were settlers. Is that a free, liberal democracy? There is no reason for civilians to carry submachine guns in any civilised society. Whatever it symbolises, it does not symbolise my understanding of a civilised society.
Mr. Peretz
We do not like the situation we have there. We do not like the occupation or its effects. The question of the border is not as important as the question of the morality of the people. It is difficult for our people, our young soldiers, when they serve in the occupied territories. It is important for us in the peace camp to bring this situation to an end. I would agree to pay a lot to achieve the new dream that the Palestinians may undertake responsibility for the problems. I do not want our soldiers to be there like policemen. It is not our job.
I hope some time we can come again to this committee and talk about a partnership project between the Palestinians and Israel and that the Middle East will be a place where people can dream about the future rather than the very bad situation there now. We dream of the time when we can do it. I hope the Palestinians will understand that they have to find a way to help us, to help the people who believe in peace. They have to do what they can against terror, which gives power to people on the right. Extremists from one side serve extremists from the other side. We try to fight against our extreme people. The Palestinians have to understand this balance. We know that the acts that you describe help the extremists on the Palestinian side. We have to find a way whereby the moderate people can help one another. I do not want extremists to dictate my future. That is my message to the committee.
Mr. Herzog
I will conclude with a few short remarks. We respect your criticism and we all agree that we should be level in a decent, liberal, humanistic approach. I am absolutely sure that we have the same common denominator in not alluding in any way to justification for the acts you mention, nor to any acts of suicide bombers, mothers encouraging their children to commit suicide and preachers in mosques urging people to do it. I am sure you do not allude to any acceptance of such behaviour. That is the difference between the region you live in and the region in which we live. You have gone through tormenting times in the past and you have come out of it. We are very envious of you.
We had the Oslo process and Barak in Camp David. We had negotiations time and again. Unfortunately we did not identify enough courage on the other side to say we would continue talking. I was at the side of Mr. Barak at Camp David. I told him in the wee hours to go and do what Michael Collins agreed when he signed a deal. After 80 years the Irish Free State is blessing that agreement, after a lot of pain. He said that to Arafat and unfortunately at 4 o'clock in the morning the answer was "No", while Israel said "Yes". This is the tragedy and we do not want to reopen it. We want to continue in our search for peace. We are decent human beings and if we sign a deal, we want to know that the other side will adhere to the deal and will not attack again a moment later.
We make very tragic mistakes but none of them are intentional. We investigate, we indict. With all due respect, I myself pushed for the indictment of a soldier who unintentionally killed an older person. It happens, it is tragic. The tragic news of the girl was on the main news on prime time television and the officer has been indicted and the media are on him. You cannot see any parallel debate in the parallel society among our Palestinian friends. We would expect to see a debate there as well about the culture of suicide bombing. There is no black and white picture. There is truth on every side. We call on you to encourage both sides and to explain to the other side as well that you are demanding from them modes of behaviour that would show they are aiming for a liberal democracy like we have.
We accept your comments regarding the track of the fence. The main part of the track has not been built, it is open. If you look at all the judgments of the supreme court, it is extremely liberal. Guantanamo would not survive the Israeli supreme court one day.
Ambassador, gentlemen, we thank you for coming here today. You have opened up a dialogue which we would hope to continue, both in Israel and in Palestine. We plan to visit early in the new year and we will be making arrangements with Mr. Ali Halimeh on behalf of Palestine and with your ambassador, Mr. Megiddo. It is a good example of the interchange we can have when we sit down and discuss things. They become much clearer.
Of course, there is the peace dividend which we did not get time to discuss. This is hugely important for your people and for the Palestinian people. Our income per head of population is more than double yours and you have the potential, as will the Palestinians, to do the same through a partnership approach with the trade unions. All that is to be discussed. We will be happy to work with you on it. Regarding the wall, all our members were delighted to hear you say that the division must eventually be by agreement.
You will be very clear from everything said here that we are very strong supporters of the road map and we want to see the process fully back on track. We have some optimism for the beginning of the new year and we want to try to build on that. We hope the visit will be helpful in that regard. The successful conduct of the forthcoming elections will depend on the effort of the Palestinians to meet international standards as well as Israel's facilitating registration, campaigning and voting by all Palestinians throughout the occupied territories, including those resident in east Jerusalem. That whole process will crucial in the first instance.
There is a great deal more that we could discuss. We know you have time constraints and we thank you again for coming. The ambassador is a great communicator on your behalf.
I apologise that I was not here but I want to support everything that has been said. It is the intention of the Irish to invade Tel Aviv next March and we intend to beat you by three goals to one.