Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 13 Jan 2009

Situation in Gaza: Discussion.

The next item on the agenda is the current situation in Gaza. I welcome everyone present to this meeting. I welcome His Excellency Dr. Zion Evrony, ambassador of Israel to Ireland and Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri, Head of Mission, General Delegation of Palestine to Ireland.

The committee has shown a deep interest in Israel-Palestine relations for many years. I led a delegation from the committee to Israel and the West Bank in March 2008. I was accompanied by Deputies Rory O'Hanlon, Michael D. Higgins, Alan Shatter, Seán Ardagh and Senator Mark Daly. During our visit we met with Mr. John Ging, head of the UN Work and Relief Agency in Gaza and visited Sderot, a town close to the border with Gaza. Regrettably, however, we were prevented from entering the territory of Gaza. Several members of this committee have repeatedly expressed concern about the long-standing blockade of Gaza by the Israeli Government which has left most of the population of 1.5 million unable to access many basic services amidst the collapse of infrastructure and severe shortages of power, water, food and medical supplies.

Even before the military offensive the humanitarian situation in Gaza was desperate. The severe restriction on movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza was of major international concern. Before the escalation of hostilities, the unwillingness by Hamas to reject totally the use of violence and its increased targeting of Israeli civilians with Grad missiles was unacceptable.

The international community had been calling on all sides to engage in a negotiated peace process as the only way to achieve a just and lasting two-state solution. Despite these calls Israel decided to launch a massive military offensive against Gaza 18 days ago. Since then ten Israeli soldiers and four civilians, and an estimated 900 Palestinians, many of them women, and more than 270 children, have been killed. The UN Security Council has called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. The Government has reiterated this call.

The eyes of the world are on Gaza, Israel, Hamas and the situation in Palestine. The international community is calling for an immediate end to the bloodshed. It is in this bleak context that we have convened this meeting.

I advise the witnesses that whereas Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas enjoy absolute privilege in respect of utterances made in committee witnesses do not. Accordingly, caution should be exercised particularly with regard to references of a personal nature. I invite His Excellency, Dr. Zion Evrony, ambassador of Israel to Ireland, to speak. I will then call on Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri, Head of Mission, General Delegation of Palestine to Ireland, to speak before taking questions from members of the committee.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity today to convey Israel's position on the current crisis in Israel and Gaza. I am glad to be here with my Palestinian colleague, Dr. Ajjuri. For eight years 250,000 Israelis have suffered the trauma of almost daily missile attacks from Gaza. More than 8,000 rockets, missiles and mortar shells have targeted Israeli towns and villages. These are not homemade flying objects, as some have described here, but lethal missiles. Innocent civilians, women and children, have been killed and many wounded. Homes, schools and synagogues have been destroyed. In recent weeks 1 million Israelis have come within the range of Hamas missiles, the range of which is getting longer and longer, 20 km from Tel Aviv, our largest city. A total of 300,000 children have stopped attending school as a result. Life has become unbearable.

For eight years the voice of condemnation of this crime of deliberately targeting Israeli civilians has been sadly lacking, especially among some of those who are now among the loudest critics of Israel. I do not refer to Deputy Michael D. Higgins who I know has criticised the Hamas actions. For eight years the residents of these towns have had just 15 seconds to rush with their children and the elderly to find cover before rockets and missiles land on their homes and schools. That would not even be enough time to leave this room.

I appeal to members of the committee to imagine Dublin being subjected to 8,000 missiles day after day and night after night. What would they do? What would they expect the Taoiseach to do? Would there not be a point at which the Government would say enough was enough? No state would permit such attacks on its citizens, nor should it. Israel, like any other nation, has a right and duty to protect its citizens. This right of self-defence is a cornerstone of international law, about which there has been much talk recently. The right of self-defence is one of the most important principles of international law.

The only purpose of Israel's action is to end the suffering of the people of southern Israel, to destroy the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas, the ammunition depots and smuggling tunnels until the missiles fired at Israeli civilians are stopped. The people of Gaza, the Palestinian people, are not our enemies. Our enemy is the Hamas terrorist. The majority of those killed have been Hamas fighters. We have been negotiating seriously with the Palestinian authorities. There has been important progress, although there are still wide gaps. The issues are very complex. Genuine, serious negotiations, with the goal of ending the conflict, are taking place. The enemy is the Hamas terrorist. As I said, the majority of those killed have been Hamas fighters.

I am sorry for the death of civilians. We are all sorry for the death of civilians. When civilians are killed, whether Israeli or Palestinian, it is tragic but I assure the committee that Israel does not deliberately target civilians and is making every effort humanly possible to avoid civilian casualties, even where these measures endanger the lives of our soldiers or the effectiveness of their operations. Since this operation began the Israeli defence forces have been dropping leaflets, broadcasting radio messages and telephoning evacuation warnings to families living in buildings used by Hamas as launching pads for rocket fire or for storing weapons and explosives. A significant amount of the time at air force briefings is spent dedicated to discussing ways of hitting known terrorist targets without harm to civilians.

The responsibility for harm to civilians, as I am sure will be described soon, must lie with Hamas which cynically exploits the civilian population as human shields, placing its ammunition and missiles in mosques and schools, firing missiles from nearby residential buildings, and now hiding in hospitals. The tragic incident at the Jabalia school shows that despite all our efforts, we are not always successful in avoiding civilian casualties, which are sincerely regretted. Mistakes happen even in times of peace, let alone in the turmoil of war. Mistakes happen in Afghanistan. Civilians have been killed in every war in history. We lost three of our own soldiers who were killed by their brothers in arms in a tragic friendly fire incident.

We can compare the numbers of civilians killed but numbers do not give the full picture. Proportionality is not measured only by the number of those killed but by the scale of the threat we face. More importantly, who bears greater responsibility for this crisis? Who instigated this crisis? I emphasise that we are talking about almost 1 million Israeli civilians who are now within range of these terrifying and lethal missiles.

Proportionality does not mean simple retaliation, one for one. Would the Chairman and members of the committee advise us to fire back 8,000 missiles indiscriminately like Hamas? Would that be proportionately appropriate? What is proportional use of force? Self-defence implies the right to do what is necessary, not merely to retaliate but to remove the source of the attack.

Another important point is that the low number of Israeli fatalities and casualties is not only due to early warning systems but also a well organised system of shelters. These missiles have hit schools, kindergartens and shopping malls and, fortunately, people had enough time to run for shelter but the number of Israelis killed could be in the hundreds now. While we are all saddened by some of the images that have emerged from Gaza, we must not lose sight of the suffering on the Israeli side or the right of the almost 1 million men, women and children of southern Israel to live free from daily rocket attacks. No country would have shown the kind of patience and restraint Israel has shown in waiting this long to respond. We were interested in continuing the ceasefire. We supported the Egyptian initiative. The Egyptians and the President of the Palestinian Authority urged Hamas to continue with the ceasefire, but it refused because it listened to its Iranian masters.

We are not interested in the reoccupation of Gaza. This is a conflict that has been forced upon us by Hamas. In the years and months gone by we have demonstrated restraint and tried everything to stop the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and to reach a situation of calm but, sadly, we were left with no alternative but to take military action.

It was the hope for peace that led us to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, for the sake of peace, and the terrorism of Hamas that compelled us to re-enter. We withdrew completely from Gaza in spite of all the comments about the so-called occupation of Gaza. Not a single Israeli soldier or citizen was left in Gaza. All military installations were destroyed and all settlements removed. It was a very courageous move to remove so many settlers against their will and it was not a popular move.

The Palestinians had a chance to start building their state. There was no so-called siege. The border crossings at the time were open, except for weapons and ammunition, but Hamas started firing missiles and bombarding Israel immediately after our withdrawal, even firing at the border crossings and power station that provides electricity to Gaza. We received complaints from the employees of this power station that it was absurd that they had to risk their lives to fix the power lines to supply electricity to Gaza, power lines that were hit by Hamas missiles.

It seems that some do not fully understand the nature of Hamas, the nature of the enemy, and have forgotten how it sent suicide bombers to murder Israeli teenagers in discotheques, how it perpetrated horrendous massacres in restaurants and cafés and killed hundreds of Israelis. If members reflect on the idea of suicide bombers and their mentality, they will realise who we are fighting.

Hamas is a violent Islamic terrorist organisation that does not represent the real interest of the Palestinian people or their desire for independence. Rather its declared aim is the destruction of the state of Israel. This is clearly stated in the Hamas Charter, a disturbing document, one which I urge all members to read carefully to understand the true nature of this organisation. It states that "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it". That is one quotation from that charter, which is still very valid.

Hamas is not just Israel's enemy, but the enemy of all moderate Palestinians and a key obstacle to achieving peace. It rejects the idea of a two-state solution and vehemently opposes negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

In response to some of my Irish friends who suggest the solution is a dialogue with Hamas, let me clarify the situation. Hamas is not the IRA. Unlike the IRA, Hamas ideology is defined in absolutist, religious terms, that of a radical version of Islam, not open to influence or change. The core of its belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just in the West Bank and Gaza, but also in Israel. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. To join the negotiating table the IRA had to accept the Mitchell principles, to use exclusively peaceful and democratic means to resolve the conflict.

What is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas after this crisis is over? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the international community: recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These are sensible principles, but Hamas will not accept them because Hamas is not interested in peace. In the short term, to solve this crisis and end the suffering on both Palestinian and Israeli sides, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and smuggling weapons into Gaza, it could pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire.

Following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Palestinians were given an historic opportunity to change their fate and use the massive international aid available to them to develop a state. Instead, Hamas seized control of Gaza in a coup and turned it into a den of oppression and terrorism. It methodically violated all ceasefire agreements and has smuggled weapons and rockets into Gaza while consistently ignoring and neglecting the basic needs of Gaza civilians. Many of these weapons and rockets are provided to Hamas by Iran, which also provides military training and political support to carry out attacks against Israel. With its new Iranian-made missiles Hamas is able to reach as far as the cities of Ashdod and Beersheba, placing up to 1 million Israelis in the shadow of terror. In this context, Israel has to achieve its goal of a stable ceasefire and create a more secure reality in the long run, which means an end to the rockets fired on Israeli citizens and the smuggling of weapons into Gaza by Hamas.

We do not ask the international community to fight with us; we ask for understanding. It is no longer the Israeli-Palestinian or the Jewish-Arab conflict. It is a conflict between moderates and extremists, between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and moderate Palestinians on one side and the extremists, Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas on the other. This is how the region is divided. We have not yet achieved our goal but Israel is engaged in a dialogue with the international community and seriously examines every option through which a ceasefire can be achieved. There are several initiatives and hopefully one of them will help us reach the important goal of a ceasefire and an end to this crisis. Meanwhile, Israel is making every effort to avoid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza by allowing the entry of food and medicines to the area. For example, every day a humanitarian recess is implemented between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. in Gaza, during which time there is a cessation in IDF operations and two border crossings are opened.

We view the humanitarian work of international organisations as very important. We have been working closely with their representatives in the area to solve any problems that may develop. It is our deepest hope that when this crisis is over, we can get back to negotiating with moderate Palestinians to achieve the mutual goal of the peace process — two states living side-by-side, the state of Israel, the home of the Jewish people, and a future state of Palestine, which is the homeland of the Palestinian people. There is nothing the people of Israel want more than peace. They are ready to make significant sacrifices for the sake of it.

I thank the ambassador. Dr. Ajjuri will now make his presentation.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I thank the Chairman for inviting me before the committee this afternoon and take the opportunity to convey, through him, my people's and leadership's sincere appreciation to Ireland, a friendly nation with political leaders, legislators and Government, for its continued support for the cause of peace in our region.

No conflict on earth has more international attention devoted to it than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and yet no conflict remains further from resolution. The reason for this is quite simply because the rules of the game in this region, the Middle East, are completely different from the rest of the world. It is only in our region that Israel, the occupier, has been allowed to consistently ignore international law while the occupied people have been consistently called on to forgo their internationally recognised right to resist oppressive occupation.

Israel has failed to implement more than 30 Security Council resolutions which require action by it and it alone. If it had taken the action required by Security Council resolutions first, it would have removed Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, reversed its annexation of east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and opened its nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection. Israel has arrogantly refused to dismantle the wall in the West Bank, which the International Court of Justice declared on 9 July 2004 to be contrary to international law.

Ironically, and in spite of arrogantly violating international law throughout its history, Israel, the occupying power, has continued to receive unconditional support and extraordinary immunity from Western leaders, in particular the Americans, who have exercised their veto power more than 40 times in favour of Israel. This, coupled with the latest decision of the EU to upgrade the privileged trading and other relations that Israel enjoys with the EU, has made Israel, in addition to being the fifth most powerful country in the world, the most arrogant and intransigent nation in the world and almost a licensed outlaw country.

Israel, of course, has the right to protect its citizens like any other country but as an occupying power, it is obliged under international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, to protect the people under its occupation and desist from harming them. The protection of human lives and the civilian infrastructure under occupation and war conditions are core principles of international law. This is underpinned by international humanitarian law of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory.

Israel profits from and exploits the international community's silence and the turning of a blind eye to Israel's behaviour. This was blatantly reflected in a briefing on 30 October 2006 by the Israeli Prime Minister to the Knesset committee regarding Operation Summer Rains against Gaza. He stated:

There is an unprecedented international consensus for our actions. Three hundred terrorists were killed, and no one in the international community said a word.

The Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem confirmed that the majority of those he referred to as terrorists were non-combatant civilians. Profiting from the international silence, Israel, on 27 December last year — 18 days ago — launched Operation Cast Lead, which has been the bloodiest offensive against the Gazans since the occupation of Palestine. The proportionality of this military offensive is reflected in the gruesome images of this most brutal aggression ever conducted by a democratic state — I repeat, a democratic state — which are shown daily on our TV screens. This offensive has resulted so far — until this morning — in the killing of 930 people and the injury of more than 4,280, half of them women and children. This proportionality, which has transformed Gaza from a big prison into an abattoir or slaughterhouse, should induce all those with a sense of humanity to raise their voices, calling not only for the end of this aggression, but also for the protection of all Palestinians under the Israeli occupation and the end of the occupation.

In the field, Israeli attacking forces give the Palestinians, who have nowhere to go, five minutes to evacuate their homes before they bombard them. They are more generous then others, as my colleague mentioned 15 seconds for people in their territories. According to the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, last week the Israeli army ordered 100 Palestinian members of one large extended family to evacuate their homes in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza and shelter in a nearby house, and the following day shelled that very house, killing 30 and injuring the rest of the family. It was only after four days — I repeat, four days — that the Israeli army allowed paramedics to reach that house, only to find starving, horrified children next to their dead mothers.

Last Tuesday, the Israeli army shelled al-Fakhura UN school in Jabaliya despite prior information given to it by the United Nations agency that all of its schools were being used as shelters for civilians. It also furnished the army with the GPS co-ordinates of all its installations. This savage attack by the Israeli army on the aforementioned school resulted in the killing of at least 43 people. One Israeli shell killed 43 people and injured more than 100 innocent civilians, many of them women and children. This attack should remind us of Qana 1, in 1996, and Qana 2, in 2006, when the Israeli army shelled two air-raid shelters in Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of more than 150 civilian Lebanese.

During the first two hours of its ground offensive, Israel pounded Gaza with 700 shells, to lethal effect. These events proved beyond doubt that Israel is not fighting terror but, on the contrary, is itself waging a war of terror against Gaza. Ironically, Israel once again continues to elude world sentiment by launching this offensive under the pretext of security and, it is alleged, of stopping the ineffective, primitive and home-made rockets of Hamas from being thrown at them. Chairman and members of the committee, my leadership and I are totally against the use of these rockets and we are committed to ending the struggle by non-violent means. However, one cannot ignore the fact that these rockets, over the past eight years, regardless of the number — 1,000, 1 million — have killed 20 Israelis, while in retaliation for the unfortunate loss of these innocent lives — which I admit and for which I apologise — killed more than 3,500 people before Operation Cast Lead 18 days ago.

Israeli practices are a natural continuation of the Zionist strategy of ethnic cleansing of Palestine since 1948. Plan D, implemented by Mr. David Ben-Gurion, adopted a cold blooded strategy of forceful depopulation to force the indigenous people from their land and homes where they had lived for thousands of years. Consequently, the largest refugee population in the world was created. One million of those refugees are currently living on 360 sq. km of the Gaza Strip, an area less than half the size of County Louth and the most densely populated area on earth.

Mr. Ilan Pappé, the renowned Israeli historian and chair of the department of history at the University of Exeter in the UK, in his latest piece on 2 January argues that "we have to try and explain, not only to the world but also to the Israelis themselves, that Zionism is an ideology that endorses ethnic cleansing, occupation and now massacres". Mr. Gedion Levi, an Israeli political analyst writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on 3 July 2006, commented on Operation Summer Rain launched against Gaza in 2006 and said: “A state that takes such a step is no longer distinguishable from a terror organisation.”

The core of my message to the Chairman and members of the committee is, as legislators, to look beyond the immediate Israeli atrocity and establish the real, undeclared, objectives behind this offensive. The following points should be noted. The Israeli media reported that with every shell dropped on Gaza, the popularity of Mr. Barak, the current Finance Minister, and Ms Tzipi Livni, the current Foreign Minister, rises. Poll ratings in Israel show that Mr. Barak's party jumped in the first week of the aggression from nine seats to 16 and Ms Livni, who was very much behind, is now neck-and-neck with Mr. Netanyahu in the Israeli elections scheduled for next month. Israel lost its power of deterrence against neighbouring populations in Lebanon in 2006 and needs to restore it.

The corpses of the children, women, paramedics and UN Aid personnel in Gaza, the bombardment of shelters, the additional killing of six Palestinian protesters in the West Bank — there are no missiles in the West Bank — over the past ten days, coupled with the use of internationally illegal weapons, such as white phosphorous bombs, in the current offensive in Gaza give the Palestinians every reason to believe that the real target of the Israelis are not extremists, but any and every form of resistance, even that of moderate force.

Chairman, members of the committee, the shameful and unacceptable silence of world leaders is, to a certain extent, responsible for the pain the inhabitants of the Holy Land, Jews and Palestinians alike, have endured for decades. This silence blatantly reflects the leaders' impotence and failure to face the intransigence and irresponsibility of the Israeli political leadership. Since the early 1990s, world leaders have distanced themselves from attempting to resolve the crisis and have called on both sides to settle their differences on their own, as if this were a fight between equal contenders rather than a struggle between a powerful and ruthless occupying power and the people occupied.

This is in spite of the fact that these leaders know very well that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle constitutes a real threat to world peace and stability. Since the Madrid conference of 1991, the best we could have achieved through bilateral negotiations was the Oslo agreement. The Oslo agreement reflected the political decency of those who designed and signed it, yet its guarantors, the world leaders, know it has been shelved since the assassination of its Israeli instigator, the late brave Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

In August 2005 Israel redeployed its forces from the Gaza Strip. According to international law Gaza is still an occupied territory. In August 2005 Israel redeployed its forces from the Gaza Strip and declared it a non-occupied Palestinian territory while in fact retaining its grip on all the border crossings, the sky and sea of Gaza. Furthermore, Israel insisted on taking this step unilaterally and without consultation with the Palestinian Authority, thereby depriving the step of any strategic value as a lasting peace initiative. Instead, Gaza has become a virtual prison completely cut off from the world, with massive economic consequences amounting to a humanitarian disaster. These conditions created a suitable environment, a recipe, for inter-Palestinian factional fighting.

The entire sequence of events in Gaza since that redeployment was anticipated by Ariel Sharon who planned the move. That unilateral step allowed him achieve significant demographic gains and evade obligations toward a bilateral peace agreement while allowing Israel to define the borders of any future Palestinian entity on Israeli terms.

Six months before 19 December 2008, Egypt brokered a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. The first four months marked the most peaceful period for years between Gaza and Israel. During this period rocket fire declined to one per month which Israel has confirmed were not fired by Hamas. There has been no Israeli death. Had Israel been serious regarding its peaceful intentions one would have expected it to benefit from that lull by intensifying its peace negotiations with its moderate Palestinian interlocutor, President Abbas, and could have transformed President Bush's vision of a two-state solution into a reality. The opposite happened. Israel never respected the terms of the ceasefire by not lifting the siege, not opening the border crossings and by killing 23 Palestinians during those six months. Furthermore, profiting from the world's concentration on the American elections, Israel launched a cross-border raid on 4 November 2008 deliberately killing six Palestinians.

On the other front, while it was calm on the Gaza border, the Israelis conducted daily incursions into the West Bank, killing, arresting and injuring Palestinian activists. These illegal actions by the Israeli occupying forces were accompanied by Israel's expansion of its illegal settlements and the construction of its apartheid wall despite this again having been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice in July 2004.

These provocative Israeli actions were the reason behind the non-renewal of the Egyptian brokered ceasefire. This sabotage of the ceasefire has turned the Annapolis process of 27 November 2007 from an historic opportunity to end the occupation into yet another missed opportunity. The same fate met the Oslo process and the Arab initiative of 2002. Sharon called the Oslo agreement a national suicide and said the Arab initiative was not worth the ink in which it was written. That shows how serious the political leaders in Israel are about peace. Consequently, since the Oslo agreement the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have achieved little tangible progress because of Israel's bullying tactics and its determination to impose its terms unilaterally on us and the rest of the region because most of the Israeli political leaders believe that our occupied territories are liberated Jewish lands or at best disputed lands. Chairman, members of the committee, I emphasise that the rules of the game need to be changed. I very much doubt that the current bilateral negotiations alone will be able to provide us with what both Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land badly need, peace and security. Among Palestinians there is a terrible fear that this latest round of atrocities is simply the latest step in the attempted ethnic cleansing of Palestine of all Palestinians. There are now more than 300,000 illegal Israeli settlers on the West Bank and a further 200,000 in East Jerusalem. All of these have been settled illegally since 1967. Israel came into being as an answer to the Jewish question, not by divine decree but by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. Palestine, the viable contiguous independent state side by side with the state of Israel, is not only the answer to the Palestinian question but will be the real answer to the Hamas rockets as well. This goal is a moral, historic and constitutional duty of the United Nations. The creation of a viable Palestinian state would be much needed proof that the United Nations has a vital function in the modern world. For now, I beg of everybody here to do everything in their power to make sure that the latest Security Council resolution is implemented immediately in order to stop the carnage in Gaza.

Thank you, ambassador. I take it that the priorities you envisage at this stage are an immediate ceasefire, the establishment of a safe corridor for food and medicines, immediate action on Resolution 1860 which was based on the French-Egyptian ceasefire proposal, support for the diplomatic work currently being done by Egypt which is at a delicate stage, and getting backing from the European Union, from Ireland and others outside for these measures.

Can Dr. Evrony confirm that Israel has decided to freeze the advance on Gaza City? We understand that decision was made today. Are you in a position to confirm that?

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

Like the Chairman, I heard it from the members of the Israeli Parliament. I tried to confirm it but I cannot do so at this point. I hope this is the case. There is nothing we want more than a real ceasefire. There is another important element here. We want a ceasefire that will include an end to the smuggling of Iranian made missiles through the tunnels. Otherwise we will be back to square one within a few weeks. These missiles will be shot at Israeli civilians and Israel will have to defend itself. We want to achieve a durable, stable ceasefire, not a ceasefire for a few months but for a few years without a deadline. This is our basic interest. An important element in it for us is some kind of arrangement that will end the smuggling of heavy weapons and missiles into Gaza.

Has the use by Israel of white phosphorous shells in populated areas stopped?

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

Let me state categorically that we have not used any weapons that are not legal according to international law. That is clear, without getting into details.

I thank His Excellency Dr. Zion Evrony, ambassador of Israel to Ireland and Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri, Head of Mission, General Delegation of Palestine to Ireland for their attendance. I have listened to both contributions. While I do not expect we can solve the problems of the Middle East, which I do not believe can be compartmentalised simply as an Israel-Palestine issue, it is a little bit depressing that the two submissions demonstrate a complete breakdown of trust between both sides. I was hoping to hear a more moderate view. Irish people have been quite justifiably horrified by the images seen on our television screens over the past couple of weeks. This is a very emotive issue on which everyone almost certainly has a definitive opinion. There are two sides to this argument. In my view one life is as valuable as the next. Over the past couple of months 2,000 people have died in Zimbabwe from cholera and there has not been a word from the international community about it.

Fine Gael's position with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict is based on four clear and simple pillars. There needs to be a two-state solution, a return to the pre-1967 borders unless amended by agreement between the two parties, an agreed solution to the issue of the 1946 and 1947 Palestinian refugees, cessation by Israel of settlement activities and the dismantling of all outposts erected since March 2001. In order to achieve this we believe that all Palestinians must cease acts of violence and commit to peace. We recognise that Israel or indeed any state has the right to protect its citizens from attack but in doing so must comply with international law.

Having listened to the Israeli ambassador's contribution, and realising that this is not simply an issue between Palestine and Israel, it would be helpful if we could invite the Iranian ambassador to our next meeting to see what role Iran can play in achieving a settlement to the conflict. We are on the side of humanity and legality. We want to see an end to the Israeli offensive, an end to rocket attacks, and facilitation of humanitarian assistance through the border crossings. In other words, we want to see the adoption of UN Resolution 1860 as passed by the UN in the past few days.

I would like to ask both parties before the committee why they will not agree to Resolution 1860. What prevents them from signing up to it? One side cannot blame the other side for its actions. The death of children at the UN school was deplorable, as is the death of any innocent citizen. Does the Israeli ambassador have a view as to how this happened? There are probably conflicting reports. I hope that in time there can be an international inquiry into this and other events to establish what exactly happened. What is the view of the Palestinian Head of Mission on this incident? Does Hamas have a policy of locating rocket launchers in built-up areas and areas of close proximity to children or innocent civilians because it might prevent retaliation or if it does involve retaliation there is a possibility of a propaganda victory as a result of the death of its own civilians? Does he envisage Hamas ever moving away from terrorism? What support does Hamas have from the people of Gaza? How has Hamas treated the people of Gaza since it took over the area? Is it representative of and does it have the support of the Palestinian people? What is the view of the Palestinian Head of Mission?

I would also like to know what role we in Ireland can play as part of the EU. What role can America play? Could the Egyptians play a greater role? I note there have been calls for the banning of co-operation between the Israeli ambassador and the Palestinian Head of Mission. I do not agree with that policy. We must keep the lines of communication open. Ultimately, the remedy will be political, not military. The offensive to date has achieved only death and destruction. The rockets continue to be fired. Ultimately the pieces will have to be picked up. They can be picked up only through the political process. There has been a political failure to build on the five month ceasefire of 2008. Why was there political failure? In whose interests was it not to have the ceasefire renewed? In whose interests was it to return to conflict? Who are the beneficiaries of this conflict?

It is important to differentiate between Hamas and the Palestinian people. Our hearts go out to the Palestinian people who are suffering terror and death, and to the 900,000 Israelis who are suffering terror as a result of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.

On the third phase, if that information is accurate we would welcome that. I hope there is a freeze on the third phase of the operation.

It is very important that we call for an immediate ceasefire to save lives. It is important also, as we respond to this, to realise the international implications of what is taking place. It would be easy to conclude, when we have heard presentations and seen the discourse in the newspapers, that international law is for little people and that it does not affect the powerful. That is the depressing conclusion one might reasonably draw from events internationally in the past year or two, yet international law is important and it is of immense significance that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated unequivocally that war crimes have been committed on both sides. I believe that. I support that statement. I believe that state and non-state actors are bound by international law and that the release of missiles against civilian populations is a war crime but I believe also that the disproportionate use of military force in a dense civilian population is a clear war crime.

I base what I say on experience of Gaza on the ground. I visited Gaza in the 1980s with David Andrews. At that time I saw a population living in misery in front of open sewers. I visited Gaza again more than 20 years later, in 2005, two weeks after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Everything had got worse. In the absence of their right to expand their houses people had built additional storeys and so forth and thus 1.5 million people were living in a dense area. In addition to that, half of them were under the age of 18, as they are now. There are very large families, with 80% living below the poverty line and 40% unemployed.

This is the issue. Who is a target in a military invasion of Gaza? Is it the case, as the international media disgracefully occasionally describes it, that Israeli forces are only continuing their action against Hamas militants? Are the people working in the civil authorities under an elected Hamas administration reasonable targets? The lowest figure indicates that women and children represent 25% of casualties. If non-combatant males over 18 years of age are added, one quickly gets a figure of 50%. One cannot say one is in favour of international law if one does not draw these distinctions regarding the right of civilians under the Geneva Conventions. I do not want to delay on that point.

It is important to say that when one looks back at the circumstances in which Hamas won 45 out of 66 seats on a district basis, a great deal of that was on the frustration to advance the political process. In Taba in January 2001, and I have referred to it elsewhere, everything was on the table but when I visited Israel, Palestine and so forth the settlements were being expanded. East Jerusalem houses were being demolished and East Jerusalem was being expanded into a greater Jerusalem. There was not much progress on the issue of prisoners. In the time I have been a member of this committee I have never seen a statement from the White House that uses the phrase "Palestinian rights". The most I have seen mentioned is the Palestinian aspiration to have a state, yet a state must be viable and contiguous. Only those who know nothing about the issue suggest that Gaza could ever have been a Palestinian state.

The ambassador spoke about extremists. I met them in Hebron. They fired stones at Andreas van Agt, me and others. The suggestion was that the Palestinians were not entitled to any state and that they should go to Jordan. There are extremists on all sides but the international community and the European Union failed completely to use the opportunities available to press on for a political solution that would have a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.

First, I would like to hear the ambassador say positively that if they get a successful ceasefire and if it eliminates the firing of rockets, they will reopen talks on a viable Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders but I do not hear that. Second, I would like to hear that the agreement that will come out of the political talks I hope will follow the ceasefire will be based within the parameters of international law.

It was interesting to hear a speaker on radio suggest that they are not demonstrating in the West Bank about what is happening in Gaza and so forth. In terms of the recognition of the state of Israel, how can President Mahmoud Abbas recognise a state whose borders he does not know? The reality is that ten years ago in its statement, the Palestinian National Council recognised the de facto right, as I do, of the citizens of Israel to live in peace and security. That de facto recognition has been available in several documents. It was available in the prisoners’ document, to which no one refers, which is an important document. A document that was later amended in Geneva recognised the de facto right of the citizens of Israel to live in security and peace.

The European Union's existing treaty with Israel contains clear human rights clauses but the European Union has been silent on seeking their vindication and implementation. The General Affairs and External Relations Council that opens on Monday week will discuss a further deepening of economic relationships with the state of Israel. The European Union will be doing that at a time when it has failed to vindicate the existing human rights clauses and the agreement that is in place.

It is fine to suggest that this is a tiny country under siege. I want to see regional peace, and that must include Lebanon, Syria and so forth. I agree with the proposal to have a dialogue that will include Iran but there is not much to be gained from canvassing for a strike against Iran. I am not suggesting the ambassador has done that but he will be aware that some members of the Government have done that. Fortunately, that has been rejected by the United States Administration.

It is very important that we have a ceasefire. No one can justify what is happening. This is not a matter of denial. How often has it been said in the past when lives have been lost that militants were outside the wall firing rockets or whatever and then later, when people were caught out, they were forced to change the story? The reality is that we need a ceasefire and it is reasonable to assume the ceasefire would be such as to give guarantees to the citizens of Sderot and enable citizens in Israel to live in peace and security but Palestinian realities cannot continue to be ignored. We are talking about an occupation.

I discussed the matter with the former Prime Minister of Holland, Andreas van Agt and others, and the other Ministers who were there, but the withdrawal in 2005 did not release Israel from the obligations of an occupying power. I do not have the time here, nor is it appropriate, to go through the detail of it. Israel has not relinquished its obligations as an occupying power when it retains control of the borders, the sea and the air and it has not allowed a type of autonomy to emerge.

Neither can one defend what is happening in regard to the West Bank. Reference was made to B'Tselem. B'Tselem's reports on one place after another should be read. I suggest to the Chairman that we too have responsibilities in that regard. There will be those who will suggest that the evidence of John Ging is not balanced. His evidence could not be more straightforward. A United Nations driver of a convoy bringing humanitarian aid was killed. That is a fact. On behalf of UNRWA he recommended to families to take shelter in schools under the administration of the United Nations that were shelled. In addition, the European Union regularly discusses the giving of aid — an issue that we and the other related Oireachtas committee examine — for the building of infrastructure in Palestine, aid that it had sought to build infrastructure, which subsequently it has seen wiped out. Even with the ceasefire, can the committee say that is enough now until the next time, when there is a wasteland in Gaza? People have said what it is like there. I wish people could visit it. When the Chairman and I were there we met Gideon Levy and he said that no journalist had been let in for a very long time and people gave their interviews over the telephone. That is a fact.

When going forward I agree that the committee should call for what has been proposed — that is easily done. The committee should also practically examine what pressures can be brought to bear on both sides to achieve a ceasefire. We should engage with the other parties in the region, use pressure to advance the case and demand that there be political talks and participation in such talks and an end to the illegal and murdering actions of non-state actors. In that respect I mention Hamas.

However, equally, it is pointless to not also use the only levers we have, which are economic, political and legal, to put pressure on the other side that simply can tell us, as it does so often, that if it is getting €3 billion a year from the United States, it can afford to tell us to get lost. As one person said about a putative Palestinian state, "I do not care if they call it fried chicken, it does not matter".

The reality is that there is a responsibility on Ireland, the European Union and the international community to not only nod in the direction of political talks but to use pressure on the parties to enter talks on the basis of clearly defined objectives, which are a viable contiguous Palestinian state that has as a starting point an end to the violence but that also has on the table the pre-1967 borders and support from the international community for both states to live in security and peace.

I welcome both delegations. It is a little more than six weeks since I returned from a visit to the Gaza Strip to see for myself the conditions prevailing in that area. It is clear that the blockade was a systematic attempt to break the spirt and the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip. It was a softening up of the Gaza-Palestinian community to get it ready for this onslaught. There is an attempt to portray those who are concerned with the terrorising of the Palestinian community in Gaza as sympathisers, supporters or soft on extremism or sympathetic to Hamas. This is not about supporting Palestinians or Israelis but about supporting human rights.

I have said before and I will say again that I condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel. To find a long-term solution, Hamas must amend its charter calling for the destruction of Israel. I have said that previously. Some in Hamas, and I stress that it is some, have a desire for communal martyrdom. Israel has the right to defend itself, as has any other nation, when attacks are inflicted on it. I am not trying to belittle genuine Israeli concerns and fears, but Israel has descended to such levels of brutality that it can only now be classified as a terrorist state. That is how bad matters have got.

In addition, given that Israel has ignored UN Security Council Resolution 1860 and many more resolutions, it appears to be unwilling to listen to anyone. The worrying aspect of this whole conflict is that Israel appears to be uncontrollable. It is acting as a rogue state. The inability of the international community to prevent a state from a completely disproportionate response to aggression is also worrying. Economic sanctions should be implemented — not sanctions that would affect ordinary working class community residents of Israel — against the people who have sanctioned and carried out this terror.

Tesco and other large companies trading with Israel should divest themselves of their interests there. There should be at some level a boycott diplomatically, economically and politically of Israel until it realises that its actions have consequences. Currently, there are no consequences following Israeli actions in terms of the international community. That is not acceptable. The reality is that while Israel has a veto on all negotiations, which clearly it does, there will never be a negotiated settlement. That was clear in the case of many settlements and it was clear here in Ireland, namely, that while there is a veto in place, there will never be any attempt or a sense on the part of the negotiating parties that they have to genuinely negotiate. Clearly, Israel is not willing to negotiate while that veto is in place.

Will the ambassador indicate when Israel will implement the many UN security resolutions, including resolution 1860, it is currently breaching? When will it implement resolutions 446, 452 and 465 that demand that Israel cease building settlements in the territories it has occupied since 1967?

I still stand over my call for the ambassador to be expelled. We must go one step beyond making calls, which is all the international community is currently doing — it has not implemented any action. Clearly, Israel will not listen to calls or to people asking it to do anything. It must realise that there are consequences to its actions. In terms of the purchase of settler community produce, there must be a boycott on the sale in Ireland of settler community produce.

Will the Palestinian delegate indicate if the Israeli attacks have meant that there has been an isolation of moderate Palestinian opinion? When we met Palestinian civil society groups and John Ging in the Gaza Strip it was clear that most Palestinian people we met were not calling for the destruction or overthrow of Israel or for a jihad, they were calling for peace; they wanted justice and parents wanted to get on with their lives like any others, and to watch their children grow up.

The Israeli attacks appear to be isolating those who are moderates. How will the moderates in the Palestinian community reclaim the ground they have clearly lost as a result of this phase of the conflict?

I wish to begin by thanking the Israeli ambassador and the Palestinian delegate for their contributions. I also thank the Israeli ambassador for the rationality and sense that marked his contribution.

I listen with great depression to some of the contributions made before this committee. This meeting afforded the Palestinian delegate a unique opportunity to present a constructive view with regard to how to resolve the difficulties that have arisen and to present an honest view as to the extent of the problems with which the Palestinian Authority he represents in this State has been confronted. He was also presented with the opportunity to outline the difficulties with which Fatah, as an organisation, has been confronted on foot of the very existence and activities of Hamas. To put it as diplomatically as possible, I also found the Palestinian delegate's contribution to be both economical with the truth and not designed to confer optimism with regard to the direction the peace process is taking. I will return to that matter in a moment.

I am always puzzled as to why Deputy Higgins reserves all of his moral outrage for whatever it is Israel is doing. There is a strange weakness within his contributions. The Deputy always acknowledges that he does not like Hamas or that he disagrees with it. However, he fails to understand the impact Hamas and Iran are having on the region and the extent to which they have sabotaged successive peace processes. There is something about Muslim fundamentalism that makes certain members of the Labour Party go weak at the knees and leads to their being afraid to confront reality.

I did not interrupt the Deputy and perhaps he will pay me the same courtesy.

There is something equally disturbing with regard to the contribution of Deputy Chris Andrews. The Deputy is new to the Dáil and has much to learn. I caution him that he should not go on a trip to Gaza, paid for by particular organisations, and reach conclusions. Like the Deputy, I am very concerned about human rights. When he visited Gaza, did he explore the extent to which Hamas allows full journalistic freedom to members of the media who are operating there? Did Deputy Chris Andrews explore — I had hoped Dr. Ajjuri would have referred to this matter — exactly what occurred in Gaza when Hamas took over? Dr. Ajjuri will be very familiar with that. He referred, somewhat diplomatically, to differences that occurred between Palestinian factions. That is an interesting euphemism.

What occurred when Gaza was taken over is best understood by reviewing the statistics and information that are available. Incidentally, the latter were not certified by Israel but rather by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, which is affiliated to the International Commission of Jurists and which enjoys a special consultative status with the UN. The centre set out, in statistical form, what happened when Hamas took over Gaza. Some 161 people were killed — most of these were members of Fatah, a fact I am sure Dr. Ajjuri can confirm — and a further 700 were wounded during the first week of the Hamas takeover.

The Chairman and Deputy Higgins might recall that when we visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank in March of last year, we were informed that in the preceding 12 months more Palestinians had been killed by their fellows than had lost their lives in the context of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people. In the 15-month period during which Gaza was run by Hamas, 350 Palestinians were killed and 1,900 were wounded. When Deputy Chris Andrews visited Gaza, did he inquire about that matter? In the context of his concern regarding human rights and the awful conflict that is now taking place and which never should have been necessary——

On a point of order——

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

Deputy Chris Andrews wishes to raise a point of order.

——are the questions being posed by Deputy Shatter aimed at me or are they to be answered by our guests?

The Deputy visited Gaza——

Deputy Shatter appears to be putting more questions to me than he is to our guests. At whom are his questions aimed?

Deputy Chris Andrews should allow Deputy Shatter to continue. Deputy Shatter contained himself while Deputy Chris Andrews was making his contribution and Deputy Chris Andrews should pay him the same courtesy.

In fairness, the questions the Deputy is posing appear to be addressed to me rather than to our guests.

Deputy Shatter asked whether Deputy Chris Andrews was shown certain figures. If Deputy Shatter wants to direct questions at Deputy Chris Andrews, it is a free country. However, Deputy Chris Andrews should be allowed to reply.

I am hoping that some of these questions will be responded to by the Palestinian delegate, Dr. Ajjuri. I would also be interested in hearing from Deputy Chris Andrews. As the Chairman is aware, we conduct a dialogue at this committee and I would be interested in discovering the extent to which the Deputy explored these issues and the conclusions he reached. I am sure the Chairman will allow him to reply to my questions at some point.

In the context of the contributions that have been made, there is one basic and simple reality, namely, if rockets, missiles and mortars were not being fired from the Gaza territories — primarily by Hamas and on occasion by Islamic jihad — the current conflict would not be taking place. That is the reality we need to understand.

I found Dr. Ajjuri's contribution depressing because he is not prepared to acknowledge what was acknowledged to members of the committee during their visit in March, namely, that Hamas is utterly opposed to the peace process and to the negotiations taking place under the Annapolis process, which we would all like to see reach a successful conclusion. Hamas, in its charter — to which Deputy Chris Andrews referred but of which Dr. Ajjuri made no mention — indicates that not only is it committed to the complete destruction of the Israeli state, an aim in respect of which it has substantial support from Iran, but that it is also committed in respect of a variety of other matters.

In the said charter, Hamas makes a number of statements. Article 7, which Deputy Chris Andrews indicated that he would like to be changed, states:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews [it should be noted that this article refers to the Jews and not simply the Israelis] killing the Jews. When the Jew will hide behind stones and trees the stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him..."

I am sure it has not escaped the attention of my colleagues in both Houses that I happen to be the only Jewish Member of this Parliament. As such, I take seriously the lessons of history and what is said by extremist groups, be they on the right or the left or be they of the current Muslim fundamentalist variety. Iran has been quite public in its call that the state of Israel, which is recognised by and part of the United Nations, should be wiped off the map.

We know — Dr. Ajjuri did not refer to this but I would be genuinely interested in hearing what he has to say about it — that Iran finances and arms Hamas and that it supports the latter in the firing of rockets. We also know that Iran is doing everything possible not only to foment conflict in the region but also to ensure that the Annapolis peace process will be no more successful than some of its predecessors. Iran held rejectionist conferences in Tehran on an annual basis to oppose the Oslo agreements to which Yasser Arafat was a party and which were supported by Fatah. Iran, as Dr. Ajjuri is well aware, did everything it could to sabotage the success of Oslo 1 and 2.

Dr. Ajjuri referred to the death of Yitzhak Rabin at the hands of a Jewish extremist in Israel and he attributed that to the sounding of the death knell of the Oslo accords. However, as he is well aware, the difficulties that arose in progressing those agreements derived from the opposition by Hamas to the Oslo process and the series of suicide bombings that took place in Israel in the aftermath of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which undermined the confidence of the Israeli public in the possibility of peace being properly achieved.

With each rocket fired out of Gaza, greater difficulties are created for the successful outcome to a peace process. As a member of this Parliament and as a citizen of this State, Ireland's only interest has been well articulated by successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs. The only solution is a two-state solution with the Israeli state living side by side in security and peace with a Palestinian state. The elephant in the room to which Dr. Ajjuri did not refer is that Hamas is resolutely and totally opposed to such a settlement but the Israeli ambassador made reference to this.

I challenge Deputy Chris Andrews because in recent weeks he has assumed a public profile of outrage on this issue with a gesture indicating he is opposed to rockets being fired but I do not recall the Deputy during the course of rockets being fired into Sderot and other Israeli towns finding the need to lobby Members of this House to put their names on letters to newspapers or to issue statements. It was only when the Israeli state sought to defend itself against attack that the Deputy found his outrage.

I have listened to the comments of various members and reference was made to arguments we hear on a regular basis. Deputies Higgins and Andrews stated the Israeli state lacked proportionality in its response and Israel was criticised for closing its borders with Gaza. There was also criticism, as part of the propaganda discourse, when the Palestinian delegate referred to the Israel security wall or fence as an apartheid wall. Members are prepared to acknowledge under UN Article 51 that the Israeli state is entitled to defend itself as this State would be entitled to defend itself if it was under similar attack. In fairness to Deputies Andrews and Higgins, they are both prepared to acknowledge there is an onus on each UN member state to protect its own citizens. However, I have difficulty understanding what conduct they regard as acceptable for a state such as Israel, which is targeted on a daily basis with 70 or 80 rockets fired at its civilians, to defend itself. Apparently, one cannot close border crossings because one is behaving badly or disproportionately or imprisoning the population of Gaza. People who say that tend to ignore the fact that part of Gaza's border is contiguous with Egypt and the Egyptians could very well provide whatever relief to Gaza they believe is necessary in the current political circumstances. Egypt is never criticised for closing its border with Gaza but apparently closing borders as a response to rockets being fired at one is inappropriate.

It is also apparently inappropriate in the context of dealing with rockets being fired at one to in any way respond. One is not allowed to defend oneself. If one defends oneself, one is told one is behaving disproportionately. Would some member define what is a proportionate response? If closing one's borders to Gaza and not allowing free movement as a non-violent response is not appropriate to rockets being fired at one, what is the proportionate response? Is it suggested that a proportionate response to the firing of 8,000 rockets since 2001 and 5,500 since August 2005 when Israel evacuated Gaza, would be for the Israeli army to site a rocket base in Sderot, the closest town to the Gaza border, and indiscriminately fire a rocket into Gaza for every rocket fired indiscriminately into Israel? I do not suggest this, as it would be appallingly wrong. However, if we are discussing proportionate responses in these euphemistic terms, for each indiscriminate rocket fired at the Israeli state, is it suggested it should fire back indiscriminately?

Before such arguments are used, we should examine with a degree of rationality and understanding what we are discussing. I would like to see this conflict ended, as would everyone on the committee. I would also like the Annapolis process to be successful. There were valuable discussions involving various people including Abu Allah last March regarding where the process was headed. There was an optimism about the process but, as Dr. Ajjuri knows well — and in exchanges such as this in the international community, it would be helpful to articulate it — given the divisions between Fatah and Hamas, the fact that two different administrations are running two different parts of what should be a single Palestinian state and the fact that negotiations are taking place the very occurrence of which are rejected by Hamas and which, if they produce a result, there is no certainty it could be implemented on the Palestinian side, for as long as that remains a problem, this region is confronted by the reality that there will not be an effective resolution.

I would like to see this conflict end. Israel, like any other state, is entitled to say it is entitled to protect its citizens from continued rocket attack. I would like to see the end of rocket firing. When Dr. Ajjuri said he disagreed with such rocket attacks he minimised the impact and effect of these attacks. He referred to the use of home made weapons. The Chairman omitted to make reference to this as did Deputy Higgins. When we visited Sderot, we were present when one rocket was fired into the town. We had to temporarily abandon a meeting with the mayor that morning. Four more rockets fell that evening as we moved on to Jerusalem. That evening, eight students died in a college in Jerusalem. These were 15 and 16 year old students who were shot by an extremist. That night, as I sat in Jerusalem, CNN showed pictures from Gaza of members of Hamas shooting off rifles and celebrating in the streets the murder of eight 15 and 16 year olds. For as long as that continues to be the reality in Gaza, the possibility of an end to this conflict and a real resolution with the two-state solution many of us would like to see with both sides living side by side in peace will not prove possible.

Perhaps it would be helpful if Dr. Ajjuri could be more honest and acknowledge the difficulties presented to Fatah and the Palestinian Authority by Hamas. The situation is something a great deal more than a brief disagreement between friends. It is something that Egypt has striven to try and resolve, but has proved incapable of doing so far. It is something fomented by Iran.

I support the proposal made by my colleague Deputy Timmins, that the Iranian ambassador be asked next to come before this committee. He should explain publicly to this committee why Iran has opposed every peace initiative so far, why it is funding the fomenting of violence and destruction in the region, why it is opposed to the Annapolis process and why its publicly announced international political objective is that the Israeli state be destroyed. It would be helpful if Dr. Ajjuri publicly acknowledged that Iran is the elephant in the room that creates the difficulty in this region.

It might be helpful if some of my colleagues present, and Members of this House, accepted that reality and accepted the complexities of the difficulties confronting resolution of the problem in this region. For many years we used to get exasperated with people arriving in this country from America in the late 1970s and early 1980s prescribing to us simplistic solutions to the problems of Northern Ireland without understanding the needs and complexities. What is particularly unfortunate is that we, on occasion, seek to prescribe simplistic solutions for the Palestinian-Israeli difficulties, without understanding the true complexities.

It is even more depressing that Sinn Féin seems to have adopted the Hamas perspective on the world and seems utterly committed, not merely to stirring the pot in this region to create difficulties with a peace process, but to forget all of the lessons of our peace process. In so far as Sinn Féin has relationships with violent organisations in Gaza, it could well use the experience of our peace process to persuade those committed to violence and terrorism that there is no military solution and the only way forward is through discussions and negotiations and, ultimately and hopefully, a peace initiative that truly works.

We have three speakers remaining, Senator Mark Daly, Deputy Joe Costello and Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh. We must also provide an opportunity for Deputy Chris Andrews to respond and provide time for Senator Maurice Cummins. I suggest speakers keep more tightly to the time limits. Let us concentrate on the immediate need for a ceasefire, a safe corridor for food, medicines and humanitarian aid and urgent negotiation of a long-term solution.

I suggest that rather than cutting anybody short, it would be preferable to adjourn until next week. Many issues have been raised and a number of comments have been made. The lengthy contribution just made raised a number of questions, not just for Deputy Andrews, but for myself. I am anxious to reply to all of them, but that may take time. I wish to say this much, this is the first time it has ever been suggested to me that my approach to the issue is simplistic.

I disagree slightly with my colleague. Rather than adjourning the meeting, I suggest the remaining speakers could be limited to five or six minutes.

Let us try and do that.

It is important we get some sort of response this evening.

In deference to the fact the two ambassadors have come to the meeting today, let us finish with our questions and give them their opportunity to reply. That is probably the best thing to do at this stage.

The Book of Exodus states: "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise." We talk about proportionality, but we know that if one followed the advice to take an eye for an eye, the whole world would be left blind.

I had the pleasure of visiting the West Bank first hand with Deputy Shatter and Deputy Higgins, but we did not get to Gaza. Like them, I find the contribution of both ambassadors depressing. I would like the Israeli ambassador to answer one question. Is Israel using phosphorus shells?

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I have already answered that.

The ambassador did not answer that question.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I told the committee categorically that Israel does not use any weapon that is illegal. We do not use phosphorus weapons, but certain phosphorus material that is legally permitted is being used. Let me make sure the Senator understands this, because this is an important question. I set it out carefully so he will understand the response.

What the ambassador is saying is that Israel uses legal phosphorus shells.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

No, that is not what I am saying. The question has been asked ——

I know the Chairman asked the question, and I heard the reply.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

Let me be very clear. The weapons being used by Israel are in keeping with international law. Israel does not use phosphorus anti-personnel munitions. However, certain smoke munitions used in the recent operation in Gaza do contain small amounts of phosphorus. They are directed against military targets and used for their designed purpose of signalling and screening. This is the answer the Israeli military has given.

Therefore, there are elements of phosphorus in the shells.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

Certain elements that are permitted for use by international law.

Are they legal?

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

They are used by NATO forces in Europe and by the British.

That does not mean they are legal.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

The Senator should not single out Israel.

I am not singling out Israel. The ambassador was asked a question by the Chairman, but he did not give the succinct response he has now given. I thank him for that.

I visited the West Bank and Sderot and was there during an attack. Having seen the newspaper reports, I admit the first casualty of war is most certainly the truth.

Having been in the West Bank and met Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, I wish to say to the ambassador from the Palestinian Authority that I am aware it was getting nowhere in its negotiations with the Israelis. The negotiations are going nowhere because the main players like the US and Hamas are not at the table. Many of the Palestinian Authority's own people are in prison. As we in Ireland know, prisoners are a very important element of any peace process.

However, as was admitted by many of the NGOs, the corruption of the Palestinian Authority, the squandering of money, the use of money to further the authority's own interests and other cases of blatant corruption did nothing for the reputation of the authority, but did much to enhance Hamas in Gaza and led to the authority's ultimate loss in the election. The authority did not serve its people well and lost credibility among them. Now the Israelis have the Palestinians between a rock and a hard place because they do not have the backing of their own people in one section of the Palestinian state and are losing support in the West Bank. To a large extent the Israeli action must be put down to an upcoming election. We all thought Benjamin Netanyahu was a man from a bygone era. However, he has made some considerable noise in the past 12 months and based on discussions we had with members of the Knesset, it was an all but foregone conclusion that he would come back to power. Obviously the attack on Gaza, amazingly enough, is being used as part of the Israeli election and unfortunately people are suffering the consequences.

There are war crimes on both sides. I have spoken about the phosphorous shells. From my limited knowledge of peace negotiations, there needs to be a hurting stalemate on both sides. That is not in place. All the players need to be willing to participate. As we know the US does not have the resources to participate at the moment. The EU cannot get its act together. The Arab world is not particularly interested as we can see with the Egyptians not doing much on their border with Gaza — even in the three-hour spell when they are allowed access for humanitarian aid.

Hamas has promised the destruction of the state of Israel. Deputy Shatter spoke about the elephant in the room. I remind him that there is more than one elephant in the room, including Iran. I would welcome the Iranian ambassador. If this meeting is to be reconvened the Iranian ambassador should be invited back.

We have a limited ability to do anything at this point. The EU has failed dramatically. We have a preferential trade agreement with Israel and we have inserted a human rights clause. However, we have not defined it or made any attempt to exercise it. I support Deputy Chris Andrews in his call for an identification of produce from the illegal settlements in the West Bank to be identified and for those to be boycotted. When Ronald Reagan came into power in 1980 there were 30,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank and there are now more than 250,000. As we know from this country's experience, that can lead to problems four centuries later. Above all the EU is the one that can use its monetary muscle to impose trade sanctions not only on Israel regarding its action but on Iran and its support for the unacceptable attacks on Israel itself. I fear the EU has been found wanting and will continue to be found wanting in this regard.

I welcome our two guests, the Israeli ambassador and the head of mission of the General Delegation of Palestine. I thank them for their presentations. It is not the most promising start to any meeting we have had here. There does not seem to be anything other than bad news on every front. We should try to be as positive as we can in coming up with solutions. A number of outsiders have contributed in a negative fashion to the present crisis in the Middle East. On the one side is Iran and on the other side is the United States. We should not invite the Iranian ambassador without inviting the US ambassador.

That is a good idea.

The two of them should be in exactly the same positions as today's witnesses to give us an opportunity to question them about the wider international game being played in the Middle East in very stark military terms.

Deputy Shatter asked how we can define proportion and disproportion. There are two key areas involved. There is the question of proportionate response and the question of consequence. In terms of proportionate response, Israel is clearly a strong state in the Middle East. It has enormous military might, including weapons of mass destruction. It has laid siege to Gaza. It controls the borders into Gaza. It has provided a wall and settlements contrary to UN resolutions. It has Gaza in an economic bind and an economic squeeze. On the other hand what is Gaza? It is a small impoverished enclave. It consists very largely of civilians and children, with more than 50% children. We must recognise there are enormous issues of proportion — akin to David and Goliath — in this respect.

There are also issues of consequence. Hamas, even though democratically elected to government, has not been recognised by the European Union since 2004 and is not recognised by the wider international community. It is being bypassed by the European Union in all matters regarding Palestine. There is a consequence regarding Hamas. I certainly do not support either the ideology or hostile tactics of Hamas. However, what about Israel? Will there be no consequences for Israel? Can the Israeli ambassador come in here and expect that we will suggest that there are no consequences either from Ireland or from the European Union or international community following Israel's actions? There have been almost 1,000 deaths and more than 4,000 casualties. It is largely the civilian population that has been targeted, surrounded and bombarded for nearly three weeks now. How can Israel expect that there will not be consequences given that the United Nations resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, an opening of the border crossings and an ending of hostilities has been disregarded?

Does the Israeli ambassador believe there is any valid reason this committee should not call on the Government to have him withdrawn and depart home to Israel until there is an end to the hostilities, the United Nations ceasefire call is heeded and the breaches of international law and the attacks on and killing of hundreds of civilians come to an end? Is there any valid reason for us not to ask the Government to suspend all contact with the Israeli Government, including trade relations, cultural relations, sporting and recreational arrangements, until the rule of law is adhered to and a ceasefire as demanded by the United Nations under Resolution 1860 is acknowledged and adhered to? Should we not further call on the European Union to do likewise considering that the privileged and preferential trading arrangements the European Union has with the Israeli Government as distinct from any other Government in the Middle East are dependent on obeying the rule of international law and respect for human rights? Are these not consequences that we can validly ask the ambassador of Israel to accept at this time of great international crisis in the Middle East?

What is the Israeli Government's position on the ending of the settlements; where between 250,000 and 500,000 people have been moved illegally contrary to all UN resolutions in this area in order to surround the Palestinian enclaves? Does the ambassador believe Israel is prepared to revert to the pre-1967 borders so meaningful talks can get under way? Is it prepared to move forward with the resolution? Are we to take it that the real reason for this attack relates to the regime change that is about to take place in the United States and the elections that are to take place in Israel next month? It seems that a window of opportunity is being used cynically. The Israeli Government is using its political muscle to ensure that a particular party gets the right result in next month's elections. I suggest that the Israeli army, which is still smarting from the stalemate in Lebanon, wants a victory at this point. Significant issues need to be addressed. If the Israeli approach does not have consequences, in addition to the actions and reactions to it, all of the talks that are taking place will be meaningless. I accept that the Irish Government has been extremely strong in issuing resolutions and condemnation. We should get a robust response from the Israeli ambassador, in particular. We should explore every possibility and mechanism that might encourage both sides to end hostilities. I refer in particular to Israel, which has a huge responsibility in bringing the present crisis to an end.

I would like to ask the Palestinian ambassador a number of questions to clarify some of the issues that have arisen in the debate so far. How many Palestinian elected parliamentarians are in jail in Israel at present?

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

More than 30.

Has it been possible for Palestinians living on the West Bank to gain access to Gaza in recent years? Dr. Ajjuri can answer these questions later in the meeting.

On the power supply to Gaza, when a group of parliamentarians, including Deputy Andrews and I, was in Gaza recently, we visited the only power station in Gaza. We were told that Gaza depends on the station for much of its power supply, although a small amount of electricity was being distributed to Gaza from an Israeli power station. We were told the Gaza power station had been bombed by the Israelis and the Palestinians were unable to repair the damage. On the day of our visit, the Israelis prevented oil that had been paid for by the EU from being supplied to the power station, thereby depriving at least two thirds of Gaza city of electricity. I understand the electricity supply is regularly disrupted for that reason.

As parliamentarians and citizens of Ireland, what action can we take to help to relieve the suffering of those whose lives have been severely disrupted by the conflict? I refer to those who have been injured in the ongoing bomb attacks, for example. Is there any more that parliamentarians can do? Like the other members of the delegation to which I referred, I travelled to Gaza by boat because we were refused passage through the Rafah crossing. I am aware that some Members of the European Parliament travelled through the Rafah crossing to Gaza in recent days. Perhaps this committee and other Oireachtas committees should consider organising a similar venture. I ask the Chairman to give his opinion on the matter.

At the start of this meeting, we paused to remember our colleague, the late Tony Gregory, who spent six years as a teacher. When Tony Gregory accompanied me on an all-party trip to the West Bank, we saw the apartheid wall for ourselves. I accept that Deputy Shatter takes offence to that phrase, but it was constructed as an apartheid wall as part of an Israeli land grab. It should come down, as the UN has demanded. While the crisis we are discussing today emerged over Christmas, its roots were in place long before that, when war was declared on a largely defenceless people. I urge the Israeli ambassador, who tried to give us a history lesson about the Irish peace process, to re-examine some aspects of it. I refer to the Mitchell principles, for example, and the role the IRA played in that regard.

I ask Deputy Shatter, who spoke about the relationship between Sinn Féin and violent groups, to reflect on his relationship with one of the most violent states in the world. He could do much more to appeal to that country to end its violence. The arrogance of the Israeli ambassador and Deputy Shatter seems to know no bounds. The comments they have made at today's meeting are a form of propaganda. Goebbels would have been proud of the twisted logic and half-truths to which they have exposed this committee. I do not say that lightly. They are trying to justify the unjustifiable, which is what Goebbels and his colleagues tried to do during the Holocaust. What we have heard today——

On a point of order, I have not interrupted anybody, but——

I did not interrupt the Deputy, but he is interrupting me.

If a Member of this House wants to accuse me of being a member of the Nazi party, that should be withdrawn.

I did not accuse the Deputy of being a member of the Nazi party. The Deputy did not bother to listen, as usual.

If a Member of the Oireachtas wants to suggest that anything I do or say has anything to do with Goebbels, I think that should be withdrawn. It is a classic caricature example of the manner in which this member of Sinn Féin conducts himself. I accept that not all members of Sinn Féin behave in such a manner. In the context of this debate, it is a particular propaganda caricature. It seems that people who had no interest in——

The Deputy is interrupting me at this stage.

——the peace process now wish to contribute to discussions of this nature.

I ask the Deputy to extend to me the courtesy, which was afforded to other members, of allowing me to present——

I ask the Deputy to withdraw what he said.

I will continue to present——

It was completely and entirely unacceptable.

I will not withdraw it. The Deputy did not even bother to listen to me, which is normal for him. If he had listened to what I said, he would be aware that I was making a comparison with the likes of Goebbels, who tried to justify the unjustifiable during the Holocaust. I did not say that the Deputy tried to justify the Holocaust. I said no such thing. I am suggesting to him and to the representative of Israel who is present at this meeting——

Apparently it is the Deputy's view——

The Deputy is interrupting again. He is giving his opinion. It is censorship.

——that if the only Jewish state in the world is under attack——

When his party was in government, it provided for censorship.

——it should not defend itself in any shape or form. Apparently that is his view. It also appears to be his view that a rational contribution by the only Jewish Member of this Parliament is akin to a pronouncement by Goebbels.

This is absolutely disgraceful.

On a point of order——

Deputy Shatter complained when Deputy Andrews interrupted him.

It was an extraordinary contribution.

I have not finished my contribution. Perhaps I will be allowed to do so.

I ask Deputy Shatter to allow Deputy Ó Snodaigh to conclude.

He might avoid name-calling.

I will continue to make the contribution I had intended to make. I attended today's meeting to listen. I had hoped that there would be a rational discussion with the representatives of the warmongers. I refer to the people who have declared war on Gaza. When I visited Gaza before the recent onslaught, I saw the poor and dilapidated conditions for myself. I was not accompanied by Hamas representatives the entire time. I met several journalists, and an Israeli journalist who was critical of Hamas travelled with us. The delegation was also critical in its meetings with representatives of the Palestinian Legislative Council and Hamas about rocket attacks. We witnessed the lack of an economy, the lack of construction and education materials and the lack of basic food and fuel supplies. This was not a propaganda exercise by Hamas because this was pointed out to us by UN representatives, including John Ging. They were critical of the Palestinian people and the civil society, in particular, hoped there would be greater unity between the representatives of the people and we echoed that.

What we saw amounted to collective punishment and it was totally illegal. The boat we travelled on, the SS Dignity, left Cyprus on its fourth trip to Gaza in late December with Irish citizens on board bringing in small amounts of aid such as medical and school supplies and the response of the Israeli authorities was to ram it and to cause such damage that the boat had to hobble into Lebanon. This boat was not involved in a war mission. In recent weeks, we have been told time and again about how Hamas breached the ceasefire. When I was in Gaza, we met fishermen in Gaza Port and elsewhere who were attacked daily by the Israeli navy, which fired numerous rounds at their boats and used water cannon to destroy them. I have footage of this activity prior to the breakdown of the ceasefire.

I have several questions for the Israeli representative. How many incursions into Gaza were carried out by Israeli forces during the ceasefire? That will put the breakdown of the ceasefire in context. Since December there has been reference to 8,000 rockets being fired into Israel, which is despicable, and the large number of injuries and deaths that have resulted. How many missiles have been fired by Israeli planes since 27 December? How many shells have been fired by the Israeli navy into Gaza city? How many shells have been fired by tanks moving in on the city?

The context of this conflict is that one state has declared war on another and the committee rightly should ask for all armed action to end. In the event that there is no response to that, the committee should seek action from our Parliament and Government such as asking the EU to suspend trade agreements and so on. Up to now, I was not one of those calling for the ambassador to be sent packing but given what I heard earlier, I am seriously reconsidering my opinion. I do not favour censorship and there should be an opportunity for debate. People should be allowed to make their contributions without interruption. I will consider my position, which will depend on the ambassador's response to the debate.

I found both presentations depressing, which is understandable in the circumstances. War and conflict will not resolve this issue. I acknowledge the wrongs on both sides but "disproportionate" does not adequately describe Israel's response recently. The death of civilians, in particular, women and children, is totally unacceptable and I call for a renewed ceasefire as a matter or urgency in accordance with the UN resolution.

The Israeli ambassador referred to lack of balance in coverage of events. When will Israel allow humanitarian workers and journalists unfettered access to Gaza? Their presence is urgently needed to independently assess humanitarian need and to report on the circumstances there, including violation of international law. I hope the new American Administration will bring forward proper negotiations and there will be renewed hope for the people of the Middle East through the achievement of a two-state solution, which we support.

A question was asked about parliamentarians in jail. How many were in jail when they were elected?

Before the ambassador responds, would Deputy Andrews like to comment?

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I should be given the chance. There were serious accusations.

I will provide that but I call Deputy Andrews to respond briefly.

I reiterate my earlier comments. I condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel. Hamas must amend the charter, particularly where it calls for the destruction of Israel. Some in Hamas desire communal martyrdom. Israel, like every other country, has the right to defend itself. Extremism must be isolated in this conflict but Israel's actions are isolating moderation and moderate opinion. As the Chairman said, we must remain focused on the need for an immediate ceasefire and the delivery of medical aid to those in desperate need. The suggestion that killing almost 1,000 people is a proportionate response is unbelievable. There is an attempt by many to portray people who are outraged by what is happening as being sympathetic to Hamas. That is not the case. The vast majority of people are genuinely outraged and want a ceasefire, followed by a long-term solution to the difficulties and the conflict. However, that will not happen without an immediate ceasefire.

I do not wish to engage unnecessarily but Deputy Andrews made one comment, which is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I did not say the death of 800 or 1,000 people is a proportionate response. I said under the UN charter a state is entitled to defend itself and there is no moral equivalence between Hamas firing rockets with the deliberate intention of killing ordinary citizens and any state seeking to defend itself against attack by targeting those who are targeting it, in other words, armed combatants and the sites of their weapons supplies.

With regard to the accidental death of civilians, like everyone else on the committee, I totally regret that the life of any civilian has been lost on either side. I have even greater regret that the conflict has taken place in the first instance. With regard to the issue of moral equivalence, if no rockets had been fired and if, following the lull or ceasefire, Hamas had not immediately started firing rockets into the Israeli state, we would not be having this discussion. We would have a continuing ceasefire, which might have facilitated a continuation of the Annapolis process.

Does Deputy Shatter believe the murder of almost 1,000 civilian residents of the Gaza Strip is a proportionate response to what happened?

Deputy Andrews is playing games.

There is no game. It is a simple question.

Deputy Andrews has said a state is entitled to defend itself. He has avoided saying what any state, Israel or any other, is entitled to do when a violent terrorist organisation is firing rockets and missiles from civilian areas. How does any state defend itself against this? Inevitably, in any war of that nature lives are going to be lost.

Is the killing of 1,000 citizens proportionate?

The witnesses should be allowed to respond.

Some of those 1,000 were combatants.

It is a simple question.

Deputy Andrews is playing games.

Deputy Shatter has said he deeply regrets the loss of life in that situation.

Is the response proportionate? He has not answered that question.

He has given his answer and Deputy Andrews has had his chance to reply. I invite the ambassador to reply. I appreciate that a large number of issues and questions have been raised. He may wish to send answers to some questions at a later date. However, he is welcome to make comments and answer some of the questions asked.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I will make a few brief comments. To answer the false accusations, rewriting of history, misinformation and misunderstanding of the Middle East and Jewish and Israeli history would take a seminar for a whole year. What overshadows this discussion is the despicable analogy made by the Deputy from Sinn Féin. It shows the degree of misunderstanding here. We may need another Israeli ambassador, in addition to me, to educate the Irish people about Jewish history, the history of World War ll and what the state of Israel is all about. For some Deputies, no matter what it does, Israel will always be in the wrong and no matter what the Palestinians do, they will always be right. They have their stereotypes but one should not confuse them with the facts. One lesson from this discussion is that there is a need for people here to educate themselves and for the distinguished Deputy to apologise. I do not blame him. When one is trapped in stereotypes and prejudice, one is bound to fall into traps like this, like some of his other colleagues.

The ambassador should look at himself.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

There is much work to be done here and it will take me a long time. There have been many false accusations. I do not want to give the so-called champions of dialogue who call for the Israeli ambassador to be recalled the dignity of answering. The hypocrisy is so obvious. I am sorry my colleague, Dr. Ajjuri, is still stuck in 1948. His presentation was very disappointing, as were many of the comments made. I do not want to refer to each false accusation but they show a number of things. I have heard people who are trapped in stereotypes, prejudice, misunderstanding and misinformation. They see things in black and white and seek the convenience of looking at things superficially. What can they know about Jewish history if they make such comments? What do they know about Israeli history?

Does Israeli history justify the killing of 1,000 people?

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I did not interrupt Deputy Andrews.

The ambassador to continue without interruption, please.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

This is a struggle between two national movements which has been ongoing for almost 100 years. There is much misinformation and a lack of understanding of the special bond between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. We are seen as occupiers. Some people here feel uncomfortable in accepting the very existence of the state of Israel, including my friend here. Therefore, they pay lip-service and move on. They say they do not compare Israel with Ba'ath, insulating themselves from the accusation that they do so, but then go on to do exactly that. Deputy Ó Snodaigh should apologise before he makes a further contribution to the discussion.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

People do not understand that the land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. We were there before the first Arab arrived in the 7th century. There has been a continuous Jewish existence in the land of Israel, a majority throughout history. The creation of the state of Israel is based on morality, justice, international law and international decisions. In 1947 the United Nations decided to establish two states. One side accepted the decision and one rejected it. Do members know which side? They should read the history books. The conflict has continued ever since. Members speak about the mighty Israeli state. It is a tiny Jewish state three and a half times smaller than Ireland surrounded by 22 Arab states, some of which still seek every way to destroy the state of Israel. Did members of the committee express outrage when the President of Iran denied the Holocaust and called for Israel's destruction? The root cause of the conflict lies in the readiness of one national movement to compromise and to share and divide the land and the refusal of the other to do the same.

The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity. They rejected the UN partition resolution and the offer made to them at Camp David in 2000. Time after time Israel has shown its readiness to make peace and huge sacrifices for the sake of peace. In 1979 we gave back the Sinai Peninsula which is three times the size of Israel. We did this for the sake of genuine peace. In 1994 we made peace with Jordan. In 2000 we withdrew completely from Gaza, for which the reward was the launching of more rockets and missiles.

Ireland, a beautiful country that I love, has two great neighbours, the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea. Guess what, we live in a different neighbourhood. Our neighbours are Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas. Members suggest we should speak with the terrorist organisations; we did. We engaged with Fatah because it had made the transition and now recognises Israel's right to exist. It has renounced terrorism. With whom do members think we have been negotiating for one year? Who are our partners? Why is Hamas trying to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians? The Palestinians, including the President of the Palestinian Authority, have strongly and publicly condemned Hamas for violating the ceasefire, as has Diji.

For the sake of peace, Israel has shown its readiness to make huge sacrifices. The most important word in the Hebrew language is "Shalom" which means "Hello", "Goodbye" and "Peace". There is nothing that the Israeli people want more than to live in peace and security in this tiny land in the Middle East. I know it is difficult to comprehend this but Ireland has never had to fight for its existence, has no outside enemies or has never had to use force. If we are weak, we will be annihilated in one week. All that is needed to solve the conflict is for Hamas to stop firing missiles at Israeli citizens.

I thank the ambassador for his contribution.

On a point of order, the ambassador has stated Ireland has no enemies, that we were fighting the Atlantic Ocean and that our near neighbour was——

Mr. Derek O’Flynn

The ambassador means that since Ireland became an independent state, it has not been obliged to fight for its existence.

We must move on.

I wish only to point out a stark error.

The Senator may well be aware of the fact that no one is suggesting Ireland should be wiped off the face of the map.

I do not wish to get involved in a discussion on Irish history with the Deputy.

Nor do we have anyone firing 70 or 80 rockets a day at Dublin.

The Deputy would have no excuse for not knowing Irish history.

As the Senator is well aware.

Deputy Shatter, please.

I will not try to educate Deputy Shatter on Irish history. However, there was many a time when we were not far off the map.

We will hear now from the ambassador.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I know everyone is tired and were I to reply to everything I heard, I might need until midnight.

The ambassador has some time to reply if there are other comments he wishes to make.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I have heard the word "elephant" being used three or four times today. The only elephant in this room is the man in the photograph, Avigdor Liebherman, the former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the fourth party in Israel. Today he addressed Israeli students on how in his opinion a solution could be found in Gaza. He states the following which is written in Arabic but which I will translate for members: "The solution is available. We should do what the USA did with Japan during the Second World War." This answers many of the questions raised by Deputy Shatter. I find his criticism fascinating and like what he is trying to do. I care for the people of Israel, not only in words but in practice.

From 1995 to 2000 I chaired, with my Israeli counterparts, a huge programme called, "People to People". We believed at the time that politicians alone would never be able to achieve the peace we sought. We know that they seek to make peace but cannot keep it. We have done everything possible to keep the peace. I used to smuggle Israelis through Ramallah for our meetings. I converted many Israelis, just as my Israeli counterparts converted many Palestinians. We were serious and remain so.

On Hamas, I expected members to say what they had done in this regard. As a representative of all Palestinians, I find it difficult to criticise Hamas at this stage, just as others find it difficult to criticise the state of Israel in respect of its rejection of the International Court of Justice or the direct hit with one shell on a United Nations school. That one shell killed 43 people; the 8,000 Palestinian shells referred to have during the past eight years killed 20 people. We must accept proportionality.

We and Hamas are extremes. I am 100% against Hamas; I do not support it. What members have read is correct. I am embarrassed by calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel. I am ashamed that anybody would want to destroy it. However, we will fight with Hamas. We have decided to fight it with ballots rather than bullets. We have called for early elections. That is the only way we can set Hamas aside.

Members asked about the effects of the war. It has undermined the moderates, in particular my President. It has undermined his power and credibility and created extremists and suicide bombers. We have done everything possible to introduce Israel as a friend and a behaving middle eastern country, the best in the region. However, Israel has pushed the moderates in Palestine back some years and we will suffer in the future but we hope we will be able to manage. Therefore, it is wrong to say we are against Israel. Nobody is against Israel or the Jews. We know more about Judaism than people think.

In terms of what Israelis believe, I refer members to what Ilan Pappé, a renowned Jewish historian, has to say about ethnic cleansing in Palestine. If they want to learn about Judaism, they need only read his book. He was kicked out of Israel because he criticised the wrongdoings of its Government. Nobody in this room is anti-Semitic. The sword of anti-Semitism is held to the necks of anyone who criticises Israel. That is wrong. We want Israel to be a friendly, peaceful, prosperous country side by side with us. We will continue to fight for this. I will never, even if 90% of my people are destroyed, accept otherwise. I do not believe in taking an eye for an eye. As Gandhi once said, if we accept it, we will all end up blind. We should not put ourselves in a corner or try to score points. We would love to live in peace side by side with Israel.

Dr. Evrony has spoken of the sacrifices Israel has made. What sacrifices has it made? In 1988 the Palestinian national council put forward a solution. We have recognised Israel owns 78% of historic Palestine. Dr. Evrony spoke about the partition plan. It gave Israel 56%. We have rejected this because only 30% of the population are Israelis. That is why it was rejected, but I do not want to get into the details of how the resolution was implemented.

On the phosphorus issue, committee members should just watch al-Jazeera television in English. If they do not see it there in front of them, they should go and see our patients. We have patients who were burned by the phosphorus. My colleague has spoken about phosphorus being used by NATO to illuminate and show the road in the darkness, but Israel is using it in the middle of the day. This is how it becomes illegal and this is why we are talking about white phosphorus. However, white phosphorus or not, let us not leave this room with hard feelings.

We must all act and stop this war immediately. It is the bloodiest war and Palestine needs the help of all here to work out a solution for tomorrow. I do not want to turn my back on Israel and on the negotiations because they are a strategic option for us. We have turned our backs on the armed struggle. However, in the long time we have been together, we have achieved nothing. Dr. Evrony should admit, like former President Carter, that the Israeli political leaders are the obstacles to peace, not the people. At least 60% of Israelis would love to live in peace with us, as would the Palestinians. However, we have a problem with the Israeli leaders. We have a problem with the stereotype and the history of 7,000 years ago. Israel did not come into being by a divine decree and I will continue to say that.

We have agreed to behave like civilised people and a civilised nation. There should be one body to turn to at this stage, since we have failed to achieve peace by negotiations. The one body in question is the United Nations. Take us to the United Nations. Please bring the United Nations back to where it belongs.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

Hamas is perfect.

On that positive note, we come to the end of this discussion. There was discussion on proportional and disproportional responses. We are deeply concerned by the extreme loss of civilian life and this is the major concern for the Irish people. We want an end to this battle and to see a ceasefire now. We do not want the war to continue further. We want to see Israel and Palestine live in peace and to do everything we can to bring that about. We want to support the efforts of both sides to do that.

As can be seen, the more we delve into the past and the difficulties of the past, the more arguments and differences arise. That is the danger with having meetings such as this where people raise a matter that gives rise to argument. We must stay focused on the UN resolution, on the work being done with Egypt in conjunction with both sides and those directly involved and support the initiatives being taken. We will do that and follow up on the issues with our Minister. It is crucial we get a ceasefire immediately and a clear corridor for medicines and humanitarian aid.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

And an end to smuggling of weapons through the tunnels. That is an important element without which a stable ceasefire cannot be achieved.

We agree. I asked the ambassador earlier about how the more powerful Grad missiles got there.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

Through the tunnels.

Apparently, that is the reason, from the time we were there, for the build up to over 900,000 Israeli civilians.

This has been a very useful discussion. It has been good for us to look in depth again at these issues with the delegation that was here earlier and with both representatives here now.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I wish to make a final comment. When I referred to Ireland having no external enemy, I was referring to the time since Independence. Ireland has not had an external enemy since it received its Independence.

I do not want to go into the issue, but we have experience. The people of some of those here were burned out in the North of Ireland. We have come through that situation too. Perhaps there is more to be learned from the situation in the North of Ireland. Israel and Palestine must get away from the politics of the last atrocity and remain determined to work together to find a solution. They have the support for any of the measures they may take to develop a two-state solution. That is what both countries wish to have and we will give them every support in achieving that.

We have freedom of speech here and people express their views. The representatives cannot be surprised at the outcome emerging from the conflict in recent times, which is horrific. It is a serious concern for us that there should be such an extreme situation where so many civilians are killed. That said, we want to see an end to that situation. We are aware of all the complications involved in bringing it to an end and there appears to some recognition of this on all sides. We realise the political implications and that the American situation must settle down. We would like to see the Americans coming in strongly in favour of the peace process.

We welcome the attendance of both representatives here and the fact they have been so forthright with us today. They put their views clearly, and quite trenchantly at times. I assure them the committee will bear in mind what they have said. I thank them once again for coming to our committee.

On a point of order, it is an appalling breach of the Houses' rules that a member of the support staff should speak. I know the ambassador is well able to speak for himself.

He apologised. Such things happen when matters become heated.

I have no problem with the ambassador butting in, but it is a breach of procedure when people from the Gallery or support staff do so.

Before we go into private session, will the Chairman confirm that we will invite the Iranian ambassador to the next meeting, as proposed by Deputy Timmins?

We will do that.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.30 p.m. and adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 January 2009.
Top
Share