JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE debate -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 2012

Middle East Conflict: Discussion with Israeli Minister for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs

Chairman

I am pleased to welcome to the Irish Parliament the Israeli Minister for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Mr. Yuli Edelstein, who is accompanied by the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, His Excellency Boaz Modai, who is very active and of whom we see much here. He was very busy in recent weeks when the Speaker of the Knesset was here. I thank him for facilitating these visits. Mr. Edelstein is also accompanied by his adviser.

Mr. Edelstein is responsible for communicating the Israeli Government's position to the global community and lists improving Israel's image abroad as his top priority. He is a leading advocate for strengthened relations between Israel and its diaspora. As Minister, he has initiated citizen-based diplomacy programmes which use ordinary Israelis to represent the country in social media networks when travelling abroad. Given Ireland's efforts through initiatives such as the global Irish economic forum to reach out to our diaspora, enhance our international reputation and aid our economic recovery, I welcome the opportunity to discuss and examine Israel's approach to this area of importance to us.

Today's meeting will also provide an opportunity to discuss current issues in the wider Middle East. Given the situation in Syria and the wider Middle East recently, it is important to hear the Minister's perspective on what may happen in future. It is a very serious situation at the moment. Committee members have a keen interest in the Middle East peace process, the ongoing blockade of Gaza and Israeli-Palestinian relations generally. That is important as well.

The Jerusalem Post named Mr. Edelstein the tenth most influential Jew in the world, which is a good compliment to get. From an early age Mr. Edelstein was actively involved in Zionist activities in Moscow before moving to Israel in the late 1980s. He now lives in the Israeli settlement of Neve Daniel in the southern West Bank. Perhaps he will tell us a little about that.

Before inviting Mr. Edelstein to make his presentation, I advise him that he is protected by absolute privilege in respect of utterances at this committee. If he is directed by the committee to cease making remarks on a particular matter and he continues to so do, he will be entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege. He is directed that only comments or evidence in relation to the subject matter of this meeting are to be given. He is asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, he should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas - that is the Parliament - a person outside of the Houses or an official by name or in such a name as to make him or her identifiable. I invite the Minister to address the joint committee. He is very welcome.

Mr. Yuli Edelstein

I thank members of the joint committee for attending the meeting. I am very glad to see them here even if this is part of our responsibilities as parliamentarians. With the kind permission of the Chairman, although I feel very well protected, I would prefer instead of lecturing my colleagues to start with some remarks addressing the issues he mentioned, after which we can move as quickly as possible to comments, statements and questions from members.

While I will definitely not avoid all the hot issues, as it were, I should point out that part of my responsibility in the Ministry is to finally start sharing the interesting experiences we have in the field of Israel-diaspora relations with different countries in the global village in which we all live. Dozens of countries, including Ireland, have expatriate communities living in different places around the world. Israelis have some interesting practices and I am sure we also have things to learn. In June, we plan to hold a conference in Jerusalem of ministers of diaspora affairs, government officials and heads of non-governmental organisations. The response has been good. My Government is very pleased with the Israeli ambassador to Ireland who the Chairman correctly noted is an active ambassador. Having spoken to him, I am sure there will be a possibility of serious participation of those in this Government and Parliament who have responsibility for these issues.

What we witnessed in the past year and a half shows how dynamic and sometimes unpredictable is the position in the Middle East. One thing the Arab spring - a term which some people use a little more today after all the developments we have witnessed in different countries - teaches us is that people in many countries and nations in our region did not want to continue to live the way they had lived for decades. Two things are very important to understand in this respect. I did not join those who started dancing the moment the Arab spring started in different countries. I even remember some angry articles written in different newspapers around the world asking the reason the Israeli Government and Prime Minister Netanyahu were not dancing on the roofs when they witnessed all these wonderful events taking place around them.

By the same token, I should note that I do not use the term "Arab winter" to describe the Arab spring, as some people do in my country. Some developments, for example, events in Syria, are not exactly wonderful and do not reflect a position where a bad guy or dictator such as Gadaffi was overthrown and replaced by a new democratic process. That is not how these things work or have ever worked anywhere in the world. We are witnessing a very serious, historic development. While we are facing years of unrest and turmoil in our area, it is a necessary process. One cannot expect to have a fully fledged democratic process in place immediately after decades of dictatorship and the regimes we witnessed.

Israel is closely watching what is happening in our area. While we do not have much to say or contribute, the international community has a major role to play in this regard. I sincerely hope that the ultimate result - it will not be achieved tomorrow - will be finally to be able to stop saying, correctly, that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I hope that other countries in our area will be democracies with everything democracy entails, including internal criticism, difficulties at the beginning, including perhaps military conflicts, and accountability towards their people. I am sincerely hopeful that this will enable us to discuss a regional solution of a totally different kind than just how to find some in-between solution vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

All of this is connected to the issue to which the Chairman referred, namely, Iran. I hope I will not disappoint the joint committee by immediately pointing out that I will not be part of the current unfortunate discussion in the press and public meetings about whether and when to attack Iran, with how many aircraft we should attack and so forth. This whole discussion would be funny if it were not so sad. It is important to note two points. Iran is dangerous not for Israel. The last time I checked - I am sure the distinguished members know this - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was trying to obtain more missiles that travel much further than any point in Iran or Israel. He does not have 200 registered diplomats in Venezuela to attack Israel from that country. I guess he obviously has other reasons. Members will have to pardon me for using unparliamentary or non-diplomatic language when I say that in approaching this issue, we must have in mind that this is not Israeli paranoia or Israel crying out to the world to save us from Ahmadinejad. This is a danger of a dictator who two years ago brutally attacked his own people. He refers to the "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" and uses other terms we thought we would never hear again in the modern world. Once this approach is adopted, we can discuss the technical differences. With that in mind, my nightmare is that we will continue discussing the technical differences and whether sanctions work.

Members should not misunderstand me as Israel was definitely very glad to learn of the European Union's move on the issue of sanctions. Speaking of problems, however, it was not easy to reach a consensus in the European Union. I am speaking in the first person singular after having discussions in the European Parliament and with European Commissioners as recently as a couple of weeks ago. I am afraid that the view that will prevail will be one of: "We have reached a consensus and imposed sanctions and we should now wait to see if they work". The nightmare is that at some stage we will hear that Ahmadinejad is calling a press conference to show that the process is over and say to the world, "Please continue your interesting discussions about the approach and how to deal with the danger posed by Iran". I sincerely hope this will not be the development, that the sanctions work and that there will be more understanding and a broader consensus not just within the European Union but among the United States, Russia and China. It is not easy to reach this consensus. Just one week ago we again heard that there was no danger and it was a programme for peaceful purposes. We have received the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency that proves it is not exactly for peace purposes, but the understanding, as far as I am concerned, that has not yet been reached is that it is not helping Israel. It is not about defending Israel. The issue of Iran is much broader.

Last but not least is the important issue of the situation of Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority. I do not have to say to this well informed audience that from the very first day the Prime Minister of the government, Mr. Netanyahu, has been saying loud and clear that he wants to restart the negotiations without preconditions. The sad truth is that we have been negotiating about negotiations for the last two and a half years. Even some unprecedented measures such as, for example, freezing all construction work in Judea and Samaria have been taken. Not one single Israeli Government did this, but Mr. Netanyahu’s government has done it and he did not have - I can tell the committee as a colleague and an elected official of the Prime Minister’s party - an easy time in Israeli politics in doing so. It, obviously, did not lead us anywhere. The negotiations have not come any closer or become more efficient.

It is time to think a little outside the box and of a slightly different approach from the one that we still enjoy such as putting the two sides in the room and having comprehensive peace agreements, if not in one month, three months. I am not sure that this is the reality and that this will be the development, even when the two sides get together, but I hope, think, pray and believe there is more understanding on both sides that shooting each other is not the only alternative to comprehensive peace agreements. There could be different steps. When we all talk about trust building measures, I want us to ask ourselves what we mean by this. As far as I am concerned, a trust building measure could be something practical. It is not just co-operation on, say, economic issues or infrastructural projects and all those motherhood and apple pie phrases. I am sure members are familiar with the reality of the Middle East. What about water resources? When there are comprehensive peace agreements and negotiated and agreed borders, we will still have the same aquifer. No scissors in the world could cut the aquifer in our area in order that there will be Palestinian water and Israeli water. We are not even co-operating to protect our water sources, the environment and agriculture. None of us believes that when a bird flies from the Gaza Strip to the city of Ashkelon, a couple of miles away, it knows when it crosses the so-called green line. What if it is carrying bird flu and there is no co-operation because we still have not agreed whether the future capital of the Palestinian state will be called Jerusalem or Elkutz? There are real trust building measures and some emergency issues. I am sure that eventually this will be the approach.

It is easy for me to say in a discussion - some will have questions and remarks to confront the issue - but I do not want to be in the Prime Minister's shoes because the pressure of the international community is not about reaching agreements on agriculture or water resources, as the Palestinians know well. Each time one wants to build an industrial zone to provide jobs for Palestinians, they say, "No, first tell us that you are ready to accept Palestinian refugees and then we will talk about the industrial zone." This approach could be changed with a better understanding on the part of the international community and there are such signs. For example, the representative of the Quartet, Mr. Tony Blair, is working hard on the issue of economic co-operation and in developing several projects, but that is not enough. We have to understand that if we want to restart the process properly, we have to start co-operating, not just talking and discussing and setting goals that are probably unreachable right now. If someone has a good solution for me - what should we do about having Hamas here and the Palestinian Authority there? One has to talk all of them. I have not heard that Hamas is ready to talk, but even if we talk to all of them, they do not talk to each other. Four times they tried to reach agreement on a unity government without Hamas saying it, at least, recognised the existence of the state of Israel, not its right exist, not that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. We are still a Zionist entity and not even a country in the eyes of Hamas. At this stage, having an idea of how comprehensive a peace agreement might look like is a little impractical, but, at the same time, if we do not work on it and try to push the process forward, I am not sure that five years from now the situation will be different.

I started with the fears of the diaspora as far as my ministerial responsibility is concerned, but I am not sure many other issues would be of mutual importance. It is not about helping, defending or criticising Israel. There are many issues of mutual importance to Israel and Ireland in many fields. Sometimes there is progress and at other times there is not. I am aware of the two approaches in Europe, too. I will be brutally honest with members of the committee. Some countries say they have certain disagreements with Israel on its policy but this does not mean we do not have to co-operate on other issues related to science, agriculture and high tech industries. Other countries state, "No, first you come with all the solutions to the conflict and we will then start co-operating." I believe that in all areas bilateral relations are always important. Criticism is welcome in many cases and disagreements are part of the international reality, but if there is no contact between governments and countries, I am not sure that is helpful to the situation in the area.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for giving us a good insight into his views on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Perhaps he might comment on the Syrian conflict later after my colleagues have asked questions.

Mr. Yuli Edelstein

Of course.

Senator Jim Walsh

I welcome the Minister and the ambassador and thank the Minister for his presentation. We have had a number of discussions with people with an interest on both sides and have an impression of what is happening from these contacts. One of the documents we have received deals with the issue of Israel's occupation being driven by a need for security. We all accept that is an important priority for it, but the documents goes on to state that, increasingly, the objective appears to be the maintenance of the status quo. Many who have taken initiatives to resolve the conflict would come to the same conclusion. The prevention of incursions and atrocities in Israel removes the distinction between the terrorist and the civilian and, increasingly, the civilian is feeling the pressure because of this policy. It also leads to intimidation which, in turn, leads to more reprisals.

We had the Speaker of the Israeli Parliament in the Houses with the Israeli ambassador recently. I can only speak for myself, but I did not come away with optimism that there was a genuine attempt being made to try to accommodate or enter open dialogue to find a solution. There was a hard-line stance taken which would have confirmed some of the stories we had heard. The text I read is not from the Palestinian side but from an Israeli.

Within the past couple of weeks there was a book review in The Sunday Times which dealt with a story about two ladies who were pregnant and about to give birth at the same time. They spoke to each other and one decided to go to Tel Aviv which was much further away, but the second was not in a position to do so. She was going to Bethlehem, six miles away. Because of the roadblocks, it took her 24 hours to reach Bethlehem, as a consequence of which she lost her baby. I am taking the book review at face value, but we have heard other stories in which, for example, the people manning roadblocks may be Russian Jews who do not speak English, only Russian. It looks like there is a continuing policy of oppressing the Palestinian minority. As an Irishman whose state suffered for many years at the hands of a neighbouring island, I have empathy with the Palestinian people in their suffering. That is not in any way to take away from the respect we give in what has been a very difficult history for Jews across the world and their need for a secure homeland. Nonetheless, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that there is a degree of intransigence. In so far as I have analysed it, it appears as if there are disparate political views, with the Israeli Government generally made up of representatives of six or seven parties. This gives a veto and a great deal of influence to extreme minorities, which is an obstacle in advancing the cause.

Chairman

As time is limited, I ask Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn to contribute now.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Mr. Edelstein is welcome. I will go through his presentation issue by issue.

With regard to the situation in Iran, no one wants to see further conflict in the region. However, the signals being sent are very worrying, particularly by some Israeli and American politicians; there is a very worrying enthusiasm for attacking Iran which has not invaded any country in over 200 years, although there are considerable concerns about human rights abuses. I am critical of it in many respects for how it runs its affairs, but the issue is whether it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaties, whereas Israel is not and because of this Israel does not have to comply with the terms of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In 2005 Iran brought forward a proposition to allow co-operation with external public or private interests, moving beyond a responsibility to allow monitoring. This issue can be resolved, as neither Iran nor any neighbouring state wants to imagine a conflict based on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Iran has its back against the wall in defending itself. The international community must engage with in on the proposition made in 2005.

Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, as do all signatories to the treaties, but there is a question of accountability and ensuring the country will not try to develop nuclear weapons. For the record, Sinn Féin would like to see a world in which no state would have nuclear weapons and there would be full and complete disarmament. That is the way forward and the best way to guarantee the security of all the peoples in the region and internationally. Sadly, too many states have such weapons; it is widely suspected Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. It is not a signatory to any treaty or subject to inspections. That debate should take place. However, in the case of Iran, there are other concerns, including human rights abuses.

The Minister seeks to tell the story of the state of Israel across the world and explain its policies. We have told the Speaker of the Knesset, as we do the Minister, that there is no opposition to the right of the Jewish people to establish a peaceful and permanent homeland. The issue centres on the treatment of the Palestinian people and finding a just and viable permanent solution to the conflict.

On the Arab spring, it is clear that the history of regimes in the region which do not respect democratic norms is being challenged. Syria is next in line and I have no doubt that eventually the regime there will be displaced, as one cannot stop the momentum of people's desire to be free. We can see this happening across the region. This observation should lead to the view that a solution to the conflict must be found with the Palestinian people.

I am genuine in my remarks. Sinn Féin historically has had an alliance with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the Palestinian people. Most people involved in Irish politics have shared that alliance and empathy for their cause. It should be clear, however, that this does not mean we are enemies of the Jewish and Israeli peoples; that is not the case. We have seen in our own country that a just, viable and lasting solution is in the interests of everybody; there should be peace and security, while focusing on the positive elements. There is the capacity to develop the Israeli economy and reach out to the country's diaspora, as well as to deal with other issues such as education. This is admirable and it would be wonderful if the country focussed on this objective and did not have to spend so much money on security measures. That is the journey on which we have embarked.

My party fervently believes that work on settlements should be frozen, although I know the Minister lives in a settlement. One can see from the recently leaked report by the EU heads of missions that there is serious concern about the situation in area C, the growth in the Jewish population there and the reduction in Palestinian numbers. Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights, has referred to this as a form of ethnic cleansing. This is in the context of outright opposition faced on the issue. As there has been significant progress made in the settlements, a freeze on development to permit peace negotiations to take place is a must. The settlements are illegal and in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. Clearly, they are opposed and no international leader or organisation has said they are acceptable or should continue.

This is a frank conversation. I am not an enemy of the Minister, the people of Israel or the Jewish people. Nonetheless, my observation is clear, as are the lessons learned in Ireland. Unless there is a resolution of the issues that cause offence to both parties and unless there is a demonstration of an ability to sustain the process in a way that is just to all, the conflict will be perpetual and never resolved. A resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict would have the potential to unleash a significant force for good within the region. I am convinced of that from reading, studying and discussing these issues.

I thank the witnesses for attending because it is important to have dialogue. The Minister believes the security approach is justified but that approach and the approach to settlements by the Israeli state is undermining and making the Minister's job much harder in the eyes of the international community. There must come a point where the issues are resolved and I would volunteer that settlements must be frozen.

In 1988, representatives of the Palestinian people agreed to accept 22% of what had been historically the landmass of Mandate for Palestine; that was the compromise that was reached, a two state solution. That is obviously a solution that guarantees Israeli interests and future and that is the basis for moving on. Since then the population of Israeli Jews in the occupied West Bank has increased from 180,000 to 500,000. We have gone backwards from that opportunity in time.

I apologise for the repetition but if these issues are resolved, they unleash the huge potential of this historic project that has started in a positive way where Israel would have friends and allies across the world and if anyone attacked Israeli security after a resolution, the international community would clearly confront those responsible. The potential to unleash the positive elements of what has been achieved is huge and it is in the interests of Israel. If it is unlocked, it unleashes the potential of the entire region where we can start to confront the grey and have a black and white view of who the bad guys really are. I passionately believe if we can resolve this, it will unleash tremendous potential for Israel and the entire region.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan

I welcome the Minister. I am an Independent Member of the Dáil, I do not belong to a political party. What was said today was very positive and demonstrates a commitment to trust building measures and dialogue; our own history shows this is the only way forward. The analogy is of those starting off in races; they start at the blocks and if they do not get off the blocks, the race will not be run. Both Israel and Palestine at different times have been stuck on those blocks and have never got off them and we see the consequences today.

As someone who opposes nuclear weapons and favours disarmament, it is ironic that countries with nuclear weapons, and not just Israel but others too, try to lecture those countries that are trying to acquire them. I come from a position where I oppose all nuclear weapons totally.

If we look at countries where sanctions have been imposed, such as Cuba, the sanctions imposed by a superpower have had a dreadful effect on the ordinary people. There is an element of that with both Syria and Iran.

This country also has a diaspora, perhaps even greater than that of Israel. We are conscious of issues such as voting rights for members of the diaspora.

Israel is a democracy and as a woman I would prefer to live there than in certain other countries if I had to make the choice. There are, however, elements, such as the Arab community in the Israeli population, who are marginalised and under-represented in parliament. That is an issue to be addressed by Israeli democracy.

Some of us are also concerned about the human rights issues arising from Khader Adnan, who is on hunger strike. How did things get to that stage before people started to talk about it? I believe he has come off his hunger strike but this was a very serious issue.

Deputy Eric Byrne

I am sure the ambassador has the Minister well informed about the attitude of this committee to the potential state of Palestine and the Jewish state of Israel. We will not relive the disastrous diplomatic self-inflicted wound, when Irish passports were used in the killing of Hamas leaders in Abu Dhabi. We have also enough information from our military when they serve with the United Nations at the Lebanese border about the treatment of UN troops by the Israelis, resulting in the deaths of many Irish people. It is well recorded that there are serious diplomatic difficulties between Ireland and Israel.

I enjoyed the Speaker of the Knesset, Mr. Rivlin, when he was here because he was able to explain in a sophisticated way that he is not an immigrant, he is five generations in his area and he understood the Palestinians because he had been there so long. In a sense he is probably very different from the Minister because the Minister is an immigrant living in one of these newer areas.

I am fascinated by the title "Minister for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs". We have a vast diaspora and we are delivering the message that we want them to reinvest in our country or to come home when they are better qualified. What does the Minister say to Jewish people throughout the world? Is it a political belief that ultimately Jews from around the world should resettle in Israel? How does the Minister answer without alleging that those of us who might make critical statements are anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist or sectarian? The state is very good at blackguarding people who understand Jews and their religion who, because they take a non-Zionist position, are called anti-Semitic. How does the Minister relate to secular Jewish communities throughout the world who are not Zionists because the witnesses have clearly come here as representatives of Zionism?

I am trying to understand the Minister's relationship with the diaspora because we have had a successful integration of the Jewish community in Ireland. In the political arena we had a member of each of the three political parties who were Jews and there is one serving Jewish Member, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform. Does the Israeli Government want all of them to return to Israel? If that was the case, it would be a negative message to send out to Jews about their nationalities in their countries of origin.

Senator David Norris

I have a curious and mixed history, as the Minister may learn when he asks his colleagues. I supported and was helpful in the establishment of an Israeli Embassy here and I helped with the question of Ivan Demianiuk and with the Russian Jewish population. My interest, however, is not in Jewish human rights or Muslim human rights, it is in human rights full stop. For that reason, although I love the people of Israel, the country and the city of Jerusalem, I have criticisms, as any good friend would, and questions to raise about Israeli policy. I apologise for missing the Minister's contribution, I was on the Order of Business and I will have to go back because there will be a vote and I have called for a second vote myself so I will read the replies.

On human rights, there are questions about the MV Mavi Marmara and peace flotilla. That did not do a lot of good here; Irish people were on that flotilla. I know of earlier peace missions where Jewish Holocaust survivors took part because they were concerned about the situation in Palestine.

I have also been in Palestine, in Gaza. I was stuck in a UN van when both sides were firing at each other, so I know something about the situation. I know the appalling conditions inside Gaza. I realise they were very bad when Israel took over. The Egyptians were not much use; they did not care very much for the Palestinians' human rights. That is why it is important that people outside, such as me, and remarkable people such as Professor Gideon Halper, Physicians for Human Rights and strong critics within Israel can criticise infringements of human rights law. That is what shows that it is a democracy, not the representations people such as the witnesses can make, valuable though they might be to certain aspects of the Israeli state.

Will the witnesses comment on the Goldstone report? It was a significant report which found there were genuine breaches of human rights and that white phosphorus was used, which I witnessed because it was being streamed live by Al Jazeera. I recognised it at once. There is no doubt it was white phosphorus. That is an appalling thing to do. The report also found there was targeting of civilian projects such as farms. A massive chicken farm was destroyed. There was also the killing of civilians.

On the right of Palestinians to land, I do not expect the witnesses to know the places I will mention because there are places in Ireland which could be mentioned which I would not know. I am not trying to catch the witnesses out. However, when they go home will they ask about the situation in two villages, Susiya and al-Tuwani, outside Hebron? This is land that was taken illegally by settlers, even under Israeli law, yet they are serviced with sewerage, water and garbage collection services. However, every time the owners of the land try to apply to build they are denied on planning grounds by a regime that under international law, and even under Israeli domestic law, has no right to do so. It is astonishing. Houses of elderly people are demolished. They are no threat to the state of Israel. I know them; I have been there. They are nomadic farmers. That worries me because I believe it downgrades the state of Israel.

My colleague, Deputy Eric Byrne, raised the question of the murder of Hamas officials. I do not have much time for Hamas but it was democratically elected. We cannot subvert democracy by murdering them. He mentioned the use of Irish passports. I will go further. What really horrified me was the use of passports from Germany, especially granted to the children of Holocaust survivors. I am sure the witnesses remember that. The Holocaust is probably the most significant event of the 20th century. It is a reproach to Christianity, and I am a Christian, and a reproach to Europe, which solved its problems at the expense of the Palestinians. To use those passports in that way was a desecration of the Holocaust. When I said that I was accused of anti-Semitism. I do not know how I can be anti-Semitic. I actually hope I have a little Jewish blood; I am not sure. These are the questions that must be asked.

Sanctions against Iran were mentioned. I raised a number of questions about human rights with Mr. Velayati and Mr. Rafsanjani some years ago, including the fate of a group of Jews in a small town who had been arrested on charges of spying. I confronted them directly on it. I do not stop protecting human rights wherever I see them being attacked. What about the human rights of Mordechai Vanunu, who was the victim of a sting operation? He released information because he was concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He is still not allowed to leave Israel. Is there any possibility of him being allowed to leave? Why should he be confined there?

I will conclude on the issue of sanctions. I am most grateful for having the time to make my comments, and I promise to read the witnesses' replies with great care. However, I will have to leave when the bell rings. With regard to sanctions, I was astonished, considering the series of breaches of human rights, that the Euro-Med agreement was not brought into operation, given that there are human rights protocols attached to it. Europe is gutless because of its bad conscience regarding the Jewish people. I understand that, and it is right that we should have a bad conscience. However, we should not make the Palestinians pay for it. Those human rights protocols meant that when there were infringements, they should at least have been reviewed. Pressure could have been brought to bear by, perhaps, suggesting that if they did not hold back, farm produce would be sanctioned. I am not in favour of violence; I prefer diplomatic measures, as do the witnesses. The Germans are the worst, because they have the worst conscience. That is why they are building the submarine for Israel in Kiel. I am very sorry that weapons of war should be manufactured in Germany for any purpose. I say that with best wishes for both the wonderful peoples of that area at heart.

Senator Mark Daly

I welcome the Minister. He has a most interesting life story. He has a long way to go but so far he has endured a great deal. To be in his position is an extraordinary achievement, and he undoubtedly wishes to help his fellow countrymen to excel as he has in his life so far.

As Senator Norris pointed out, the Holocaust was not only the most shameful event of the last century but in human history. It is hard to contemplate that humanity could carry out mass murder on such a scale.

Like my colleagues, I have been part of a delegation - what one Israeli referred to as political tourism - that stayed in the King David Hotel. Condoleezza Rice was there too. The Germans had been there the week before that and the Hungarians were due to arrive the following week. It is a wonder that some Israeli politicians get time to do any work, given the number of political tourists that arrive. In many cases, they give very little other than tea and sympathy, as we would say in Ireland, without any real tangible solutions. Having been there and seen what it is like on the ground, I am sure the Minister often listens to politicians from other countries, such as me, and decide that we do not really understand. I cannot say that we do. When one lives with the extraordinary threat of a nearby country promising to annihilate one's country, and having gone through the experience of a regime trying to annihilate the Jews only 60 years previously, it is easy to understand why the Israelis take such a threat so seriously.

We visited Bethlehem and Hebron. There is a balance between security and ensuring people have a standard of living or existence. We have seen what is happening in the West Bank. Of all the European countries Ireland is the one that best understands that reaction to events can ensure that further deaths occur. We have knowledge of settlements and it is interesting that the witness lives in a settlement. Does he believe the Israeli people have the right to live anywhere in the West Bank? Given that he lives there, it is a statement that this is his belief. When Ronald Reagan came to power there were 40,000 settlers in the West Bank. Now there are 500,000.

There was a settlement in Ireland during Elizabethan times, and it meant we had problems 400 years later. Settlements cause problems not just for generations but for centuries. In our case, it was 400 years and counting. It is still causing problems today. There is an obligation to future generations, which is the main concern of the witnesses. The link with the diaspora and how Israel connects with its global community is amazing. However, the problems that are being created for future generations through the settlements are evident in the trouble we had, and continue to have, in the North. There is a solution now of sorts but the problem is not fully solved.

Aside from the witnesses' views on the settlements, I am anxious to hear their views on Iran and the global approach to what is happening there. How do they believe it will play out? If Israel acts unilaterally, the consequences for the world will be severe. It has quite a strong lobby in the United States in AIPAC, but what are its views on J Street, its work and its support within the Jewish American community? My understanding is that AIPAC, while being very strong in Washington, does not hugely reflect the views of Jewish America in its more extreme views.

I welcome the witnesses to Ireland. I hope they enjoy their stay and I wish them a safe return.

Chairman

I apologise, Minister, that some of the committee members had to go to the Chamber. An important announcement was made today on the referendum on the fiscal treaty for the eurozone, so some of the spokespersons on European and foreign affairs had to rush back there.

There were many straight and direct questions. I invite the Minister to respond.

Mr. Yuli Edelstein

Thank you, Chairman. First, on a personal note, if it were not for my experience I could probably be offended, but it so happened that I became a Cabinet Minister on the day I was first elected to the Knesset. It was the government of 1996 and we were then in a coalition party representing new immigrants. We immediately got two ministerial portfolios. It drove me crazy when a parliamentary committee invited me as Minister to address serious issues such as immigrant resettlement in the country and all the members of the Knesset would ask a question or even deliver an anti-ministerial speech, and then leave. I was angry for three years but, as Israel is a democracy, I then became a member of the opposition in the Knesset and started doing the same thing to other Ministers. I was not to blame. They are not bad guys, we are not bad guys but if there are three or four committees running in parallel - we do not have committees during the plenary session - and there is a motion here, a question there and a Minister answering one's previous question in yet another committee, I am aware of the reality of that.

However, I will take the liberty of addressing some of the issues raised by the distinguished members of the committee. I will not start a dialogue with every member of the committee because some of the issues overlapped. I will try to address them in a general manner. There is no offence meant, as I respect and appreciate every question and remark made here.

Chairman

I am sorry, Minister, but Deputy Durkan, the Vice Chairman of the committee, has returned. Do you wish to ask a question, Deputy Durkan?

Senator Mark Daly

I must apologise for myself and my colleague. We have just been called to a vote in the Seanad.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I, too, apologise for my absence. There was an announcement in the House and we were asked to be present. I will not interrupt the Minister.

Senator Jim Walsh

Perhaps it would be possible for the Minister to respond before we go. We have three minutes before we must leave.

Mr. Yuli Edelstein

I do not know how to answer in three minutes, but I will try.

The first issue is very important and several members addressed it, including the two Senators who must leave. It is probably personal but I wish to say loud and clear that there was a certain assumption in this room that Israel does not have the right for security reasons to still occupy, as some of the members said, territories because it is afraid for its security and there is still no stability. I wish to say in the most personal manner possible that I would never, because of my personal beliefs, my record on human rights and having been a prisoner of conscience in the past, spend one minute in any occupied territory, other than as political tourism to learn the situation. However, I would never live in occupied territories. Nobody has the right to occupy territory or oppress anyone for security reasons. That is the wrong way to run the world.

There is a long dispute taking place in our area between people living in the area, and nobody, neither the Jews nor the Arabs, will disappear. We are there and we will be there and we will have to find a modus operandi for living there. It is easy to say: “Just finish the occupation”. Which occupation? What year was the Palestine Liberation Organisation, PLO, created? It was created in 1965. The last time I checked Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip were not under any form of Israeli control in 1965. As PLO stands for Palestine Liberation Organisation, what exact territories was it going to liberate in 1965? If anybody has a good answer for me, I will stop my closing remarks and listen to the answer.

Members said they know settlements are an obstacle to peace and ask me why we build settlements and how can I live in one. I do not live in a settlement. I live in a Jewish community. All the land in the area - there were some remarks about the land - was bought for ready money, to use the language of Oscar Wilde, in the 1920s by a Jew named Holzmann. That was long before the creation of the Jewish state and long before anyone in the world had an idea that there would ever be a discussion about creating a Palestinian state. However, we all know that settlements are an obstacle to peace. This is a very interesting theory; this theory has the right to exist. There were 16 Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip and because, as we all know, settlements are the main obstacle to peace, they were all evacuated. A total of 10,000 people were evacuated. None of them was there illegally.

This morning in Dublin, after I woke up, I looked through the Internet. Today, one does not need newspapers. The Israel Defence Forces, IDF, arrived at a certain place in the area called Benyamin outside Jerusalem and threw out a number of people who were trying to start illegal construction there. This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about communities created and built by the government, all of them evacuated from the Gaza Strip. As we all know, settlements are the main obstacle to peace, and the moment we go back to the 1967 borders, there will be peace in the area. Would it not be fair to expect that since there is not a single soldier or Jew present in the Gaza Strip and Israel has moved back to the 1967 border that there would be at least some normalisation in the area? Would it not be fair for an Israeli in the street - as somebody rightly said, when I talk it is official Israel talking - to ask why, given that there are no settlements or army there, instead of peace we get 11,000 missiles fired? They hit the civilian population in the lands that are not disputed. Ashkelon, Ashdod and Rishon LeZion - some members will be familiar with these names - are not disputed territory. People live there. There is a lady in Ashkelon who visited her dentist and the missile injured both her and the dentist.

Why is that? Is it because there are illegal settlements in the Gaza Strip? The Chairman referred to the ongoing blockade or siege; I cannot recall the word he used. Does that not contradict the basic assumption that we should simply move and the conflict will be over? Is anybody enjoying being there, the MV Mavi Marmara and so forth? I do not see any Israeli interest in doing all these things after there is not a single Jew there if it were not after the security threats we are still facing. We cannot seriously say there is no threat as 11,000 missiles is a very serious threat. That changed after the evacuation, not in terms of the living standards of the families in the Gaza Strip. The main change was that instead of home made or hand made rockets that could hit the nearby town of Sderot we are now facing state of the art missiles.

It is important for me to mention that the issue is a little more complex than that. Those who think it is a minor territorial conflict might say, "You go to these borders, they go to those borders and that is it". One of the distinguished members of the committee said if we go to these borders and they go to those borders we will leave in peace but what is the answer regarding refugees? Palestinians claim that 6 million Palestinians have the right to come into the state of Israel. I never heard one Palestinian leader, and I am not talking about Hamas, say that he or she, in the name of peace, the peace process and co-existence, is prepared not to discuss or to drop the issue of the so-called Palestinian refugees. People sometimes believe there are 70 million Jews living in Israel. That is not the case. There are 6 million Jews living in Israel. I am not sure that bringing in 6 million Palestinians, most of whom were not born in the area and do not live in the area, would be a good idea of a homeland for the Jewish people.

I started by talking about the issue of occupation and security but there is another thing to mention in this discussion, even matter of factly - the Holocaust and the bad behaviour of the Europeans, and now it is at the expense of the Palestinians. We are not where we are because of the Holocaust. The United Nations probably decided, after not deciding for many years and letting the Holocaust happen, because of the Holocaust. We are not there because of the Holocaust. The first Zionist congress took place in Basel approximately 40 years before the Holocaust. It is not because of the Holocaust that the Jews want to go back home. It is not because of the Holocaust that they were thrown out of their home and to the best of my memory there was no talk about the Palestinian people when all those decisions were taken.

Having said that, I am not implying that I should not notice the interests of the Palestinian people. Something that hurt me here personally was in terms of identifying with the pain of the Palestinians. I identify a lot with the pain of the Palestinians and I am sorry for being so immodest but I will mention again that I have some idea what it means to be oppressed. That is why I cannot understand how people can say they are good friends of the Palestinians because they are friends of Arafat or the PLO or that they are good friends with Hamas because they care about the Palestinian people. I am not sure that in the country where I grew up someone who said he was a good friend of Stalin or Brezhnev would say he was a good friend of mine. I am not sure that is the equation - being friends of the leaders of the terrorist organisation that was created before the issue of Judea and Samaria arose means being a friend of the Palestinian people.

In terms of co-operation and investments in the area, there are other ways to do that. One does not have to be friends with the bad guys to try to operate. It is not easy but being friends with the PLO includes $8 million spent in one week by Madame Suha Arafat in Paris. She had a nice exit from her high tech company. From where did she take $8 million? Was that money not supposed to help the Palestinian families? I refer to a specific case. It is not Israeli propaganda; it is a well-known fact. In one week she spent $8 million on shopping in Paris. That is European money. It is taxpayers' money, including taxpayers in this country.

It is very important for us to understand that co-operation does not necessarily mean raising hands and saying, as one of the distinguished members of this committee said, that they were democratically elected. They were not democratically elected. I do not recall many parties running in those elections. I do recall speaking of the issue of human rights, which is important. Regardless of whether they are the human rights of Jews, Christians or Muslims, human rights are important. I totally agree that they are important in every place around the world. Shall we check on women's rights or the rights of homosexuals? I would not recommend anyone who wants to be openly homosexual to travel to one of the Arab countries. Gay parades are happening in Tel Aviv, not in Damascus, Riyadh or Amman. We must have proportions when we speak of human rights. Israel is not perfect. As I said to the members tongue in cheek and with a smile, when I am in the opposition I have many nice things to say about my government. I promise them that if they were sitting in a committee on defence and foreign affairs, which is what it is called in Israel, they would hear the members of the opposition saying terrible things about the government, including myself, but that is democracy. We are not perfect but one cannot compare the human rights situation in Israel with the situation of any neighbouring countries.

Speaking of diaspora affairs, we are so far away from that. If I said to Jews in any country around the world that they all had to move to Israel but they did not want to, what would I do about it? Would I get the well-known Israeli paratroopers to put them in a plane, as they did in Entebbe, and bring them to Israel? The creation of this ministry of diaspora affairs is a very good answer to that.

The members were right to mention, in terms of the classical Zionist approach, that Israel was created for the gathering of the exiles but it turned out that things were a little more complicated. Not every Jew, upon the creation of the state of Israel, said it was their dream for 2,000 years to move to Israel. The reality is more complex, and it is important, just as it is important for this country to be in touch with the Irish for, as one of the members said, economic reasons but not only for economic reasons. It is legitimate for the country of origin to be in touch with its people around the world, even if they are not planning to move in the near future and are not always supportive of and happy about all the actions of the country or of this or that government in the country. It does not matter, and even more so in the case of the state of Israel because the raison d’être of the creation of the state of Israel after 2,000 years was the gathering of the exiles and helping out Jews.

That brings us back to the issues of threats. We are not, God forbid, some kind of world Gendarmerie. We are not happy about taking care of issues. We expect different governments around the world to protect and serve their citizens - Christians, Muslims and Jews - against anti-Semitism. Thank God that is the case in most places around the world but, unfortunately, as someone mentioned earlier, when someone is talking about the destruction of the state of Israel I hope I will not be told I have to see a psychiatrist. I tend to take very seriously, after the Holocaust, the threats of those who tell me openly at every stage that they want to destroy the Jewish people and the state of Israel. That is what Ahmadinejad is saying quite openly. I am not putting words in his mouth. That is his open policy. He says it even in the United Nations and throughout the world.

It is legitimate for us to remember that when there was no Jewish state various conferences took place on this continent trying to find out whether some European countries would receive additional quotas of Jews, and most countries on this continent said they had enough Jews. It is vitally important for us to keep in mind that we want to have Israel as our homeland.

Having said all that, I agree with all those who said we must work hard to solve the conflict. It depends on what happens at the moment the conditions are right in terms of having a partner for the solution. I cannot promise the committee that I know exactly what the solution will be, where exactly the borders will be or what will happen to a specific community, but the desire for a solution is such - I say this to committee members as colleagues, as elected officials - that any peace plan, unrealistic as it might be, when put to a referendum in Israel by a strong government, will pass. One can explain to Israelis logically that it cannot work or will not work, but people are so thirsty for a solution that they are eager to buy any peace plan. However, thank God, Israeli governments are responsible; we have learned the hard way that there are no short cuts. There are no scissors, if I may use the expression again, to cut the map accurately in a way that will result in peace. However, we will continue trying and working on this. There is a great role for the international community to play, including those who really want to help the Palestinian people.

I will address issues such as the Goldstone report. It was absurd to witness, when we said the Goldstone report was, to say the least, inaccurate, the international community saying to us, "You Israelis never listen. Whenever people criticise you, you say they are anti-Semites. We cannot deal with you because you will not accept any criticism." However, Judge Goldstone then published an article in one of the American newspapers saying his report was inaccurate and that he did not know many of the facts. Why are we always getting into the same situation? It is so easy to bash Israel. The United Nations accepted all kinds of resolutions, even before the results of the Goldstone report were published. Once again, people confront Israel, saying, "How come even the United Nations has certain resolutions, but you do not listen to them?" On the day the Goldstone committee was appointed, there was already a resolution that Israel was to blame for the MV Mavi Marmara; why, therefore, was a committee even appointed? Why did it not wait for its own committee’s results? I am sorry if I am a little emotional; I remember the Chairman’s remarks at the beginning.

We continue to look for a solution. It is absolutely legitimate that some in this room, in a discussion about practical solutions, do not agree with my views, as I would not agree with the views of others, but there is one thing I can promise. With all due respect to the remark made here that sometimes in a coalition government extremists rule or have a veto, no one in the government was ever going to topple the Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, because of the peace process or the negotiations. He is unable to start the peace process because it takes two to tango. The moment there is an understanding that the other side is at least willing to negotiate, there will be negotiations. There will probably be some progress, if we are talking about trust-building measures and practical co-operation.

It has been mentioned that it took 24 hours for some lady to get to the hospital in Bethlehem because of roadblocks. My government, the so-called right-wing government, removed more than 300 roadblocks in Judea and Samaria. There are no roadblocks dividing Bethlehem from any village in the area. I will not accept argument on that point because I live five minutes from there and travel those roads together with the Palestinians. I was passed by Palestinian cars on my way to the airport to travel to Dublin. There are no roadblocks. The only so-called roadblock is at the entrance to the State of Israel and I do not think anyone can question the right of Israel to check who is going into its capital. There cannot be a situation where someone will have to wait 24 hours at a roadblock if there is no roadblock. I thought the story was going to be about a woman who wanted to go to an Israeli hospital but could not get there. I do not understand how a woman could not get to Bethlehem, as there are no roadblocks on that side of it. In terms of measures on our part, we are removing roadblocks and asking for co-operation. As I said, the Prime Minister froze settlement construction work for ten months, which obviously did not please anyone. In terms of openness towards negotiations, we are ready.

The situation in the area about which the Chairman asked - Syria - makes us even more conscious of the need for negotiations. I remember the many times I sat in committees in various parliaments, including the European Parliament, and someone said, "Mr. Edelstein, how come you are still in the Golan Heights? Give it to Assad and Syria and there will be peace." I said, "But Assad is a dictator. We do not know what will happen tomorrow," and everyone said, "Assad is there forever." It turns out Assad has not been there forever.

The Chairman, rightly, asked me for my comments. I can comment a lot, but I cannot do much because this is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it is definitely not about Israel playing a role in what is happening in Syria, which is a terrible massacre. In using the words "terrible massacre" I am directly quoting my Prime Minister at the opening meeting of the Cabinet on Sunday. We are witnessing a terrible massacre and at the same time a situation in which the building of a balcony in Ma'ale Adumim is a terrible crime against human rights. The Security Council sits for hours and days and weeks and cannot take a decision on the situation in Syria because, I guess, killing 80 or 100 citizens a day is less of a violation of human rights than building a balcony in Ma'ale Adumim. We must see things in proportion and realise Israel is not perfect, but it definitely desires a peace process and an effort to achieve peace. It is not about helping other countries or the area; it is our utmost goal in order to invest in all of the wonderful things suggested by some of the distinguished gentlemen here. It will be easier for us to talk to each other and make some progress in the area. I thank you for your patience, Chairman.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Edelstein.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I apologise, again, for being absent. I thank the Minister, the ambassador and their colleague for coming before the committee. They are doing a very difficult job, that is, engaging in diplomacy, in difficult circumstances. That is why we have diplomats. It is a tough job and it has been particularly tough in recent years. Like everybody else, I am looking at the conflict from a distance. I read a lot about the setting up of the state of Israel when I was a lot younger than I am now and my hair was a different colour, as the Chairman will be glad to know, and consider I understand some of the issues involved. I am sure my colleagues have expressed similar sentiments.

The problem as I see it is somewhat different from how people see it on the ground. As long as both sides revert to what happened in the past in order to inspire what happens in the future, there will never be a resolution. This applies to everybody. As long as Israel refers to what happened in the past to gain inspiration, there can be no future. It is that simple. There can only be ongoing violence, tit-for-tat actions and reprisals. The sad part is that the alleged peace process does not provide a structure under which peace can be formulated and the foundations can be laid for peaceful co-existence.

It is a difficult job for a diplomat to explain the inexplicable, particularly given the circumstances that obtained during Operation Cast Lead, for example. I was not a member of this committee at that time. I was a member of another committee but there was considerable criticism of the Israeli position in this committee, which was a little over the top in terms of the ambassador at the time although he may not have helped his position in his response. Two wrongs do not make a right but the criticism was considerable, and it was a considerable loss in terms of good public relations from the point of view of the Israeli cause and the general position in the area. I was a member of another committee at the time that discussed the issue and in that committee both ambassadors sat down at the same table for the first time and discussed the issues pertinent to that area openly and freely, but that was before Operation Cast Lead.

The problem is trying to justify something that is very difficult. I and others visited Gaza in recent years after Operation Cast Lead and the problem was the picture portrayed to the outside world, which was sensitive to cameras, stories and public relations without necessarily delving into the prior, deeper problem. It was very difficult to accept the diplomatic response from Israel because of the degree to which that area in Gaza had been levelled. We know the history. We know a warning was given by the Israeli authorities but that does not justify the full extent of the devastation, nor does it justify the targeting of the American school and other targets for no purpose other than the desire to make a statement that they had the ability to do it. That is difficult in a situation when one is trying to mend fences and set up new conduits for negotiation in the future.

I am old enough to remember the 1967 war, the Yom Kippur War and all the other wars. I have read about them and visited the grave of Ben-Gurion, and it was a great honour to do that because as a young fellow I was a keen follower of Israeli history. It used to appal those of us in this House to see the atrocities committed against the Israeli people over the years at weddings, funerals, in hotels and various places throughout the country. People, including babies and the elderly, were indiscriminately blown to pieces without warning. That is a serious matter. People in this country identified with the situation in Israel. Similarly, the reprisals were not something anybody was proud of, and that creates a particular problem. At what stage does it end? At what stage do both sides pull back from the brink and either agree to co-exist or decide to annihilate each other?

At what stage can it be realistically expected that a structure such as the current peace process, or an enhanced process, can be put in place that will be seen as a fair arbitrator when it comes to addressing the issues rather than either side having to go the war route or having to take reprisal by Armalite, Kalashnikov or whatever? That is important.

It is at least 30 years since I first visited Israel. I am more than 30 years old now and I can assure the committee that from my experience in public life recognition by each side of the positions of each side is critical at this time. Otherwise, in 30 years time, there will be people around a table similar to this one discussing the same issues, and the only difference will be that there will be more atrocities to which they can refer when they are discussing the issue before them. I apologise for going on about it, Chairman.

Chairman

I thank the Vice Chairman for that contribution. There is no doubt that this is a complex issue and there is a desire for peace. I travelled to Israel with the then Leader of the Opposition and now Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, and we were amazed to see the erratic settlements with the black water tanks for the Palestinians and the white water tanks for the Israelis on top of each of the tower buildings. One could identify the different houses by the colour of the tank. We saw people queuing up in the morning in Bethlehem to get across the border into Jerusalem, which was a major problem but the Minister has explained that. Does the Minister wish to make a final comment?

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I have an important question. I am sorry I missed the Minister's response earlier but he may be aware that a referendum on the fiscal treaty has been called, which is a major development. We can go back and forth on this issue all day. I can outline the list of wrong-doing and acknowledge some of those and the Minister will outline his position, but an overwhelming majority of the nations of this earth supported Palestine becoming a member of the UNESCO. That was a clear signal of the will of the international community in terms of resolving this issue and allowing Palestine to have a state, regardless of the view of the United States and so on. We can go back and forth over the arguments but the overwhelming view of the international community is that the Palestinian people should have their own state as part of a two state solution and that security, cultural rights and so on must be protected within that. I ask the Minister to respond to that point in his summation.

Mr. Yuli Edelstein

I very much appreciate the comments. To reply to the last question, the vote in the UNESCO was unfortunate for one simple reason. I believe that Jews, Christians, Muslims and all of us have a mutual history, definitely in the area where I live. We cannot deny that. When I was at the United Nations with the Prime Minister last September a colleague of mine - the word "colleague" should be in brackets - chose to walk out when Abbas started speaking. I did not, and I was proven stupid in five minutes. I had to walk out too because I heard Mr. Abbas say loud and clear, and the members will understand why I bring it up in terms of the question about the UNESCO, that he knew of two great prophets who lived in the Holy Land, one of which was Muhammad and the other Christ. I am not sure he went to all his history lessons if we are talking about chronological order, but do those of us in this room not know some other prophets who lived in the Holy Land?

I raise that in terms of the UNESCO reference because there is a place that is holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims. It is the holy mount where we believe the Jewish temple was located and on which there is now a mosque, and it is ruled by Waqf. It is for discussion, whether that is fortunate or unfortunate. Every day, including as we speak, Waqf is purposely ruining all the signs of the civilisation at that site in order for Jews not to claim that they have any rights in that place. One might ask how dare I say that or that it is propaganda and it is not nice, but that is what is happening. Bulldozers are working in the most precious archaeological site in the world. That is not what happens when Israel rules. I have not heard that we tried to eliminate Arab or Muslim history in places that are holy to Jews and Muslims. I have not heard of any other country in the area of the Middle East where the Christian population has been growing in the past decades. Someone may know that; I do not. I know what happened to the Christian population in one of the neighbouring countries after the Arab spring started.

I would be very careful describing that UNESCO majority as a very positive step for us because it is easy not to deal with the issues bilaterally and rather go to the United Nations where there is an automatic majority. If someone wants the United Nations to push the resolution that Israel is in Australia, it will do that. I apologise because I know that is a cynical comment to make in a foreign affairs committee, but that is the reality. Once again, before we support these steps we must think whether we will help the peace process and help the Palestinians or just play into the hands of those who do not want to talk to the Israelis, hence they turn to international bodies.

The Vice Chairman said something very important. It is not about what happened in the past. It is about what is going to happen in the future. That is why I ask us all, including us in Israel, the Palestinians and the international community, to make sure that when this generation is growing up in Israel, Gaza, Ramallah, Nablus or Bethlehem that in the books they read in school and the children's programmes they see on their national TV there will be a message of peace and that they will not be taught that becoming a martyr, a shahid, is the most precious thing one could wish for. I accept full accountability as far as Israeli textbooks are concerned. I would very much like to make sure that in United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation, UNRRA, schools or Muslim or other schools in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, whatever the case might be, there would be the same transparency and accountability. My Government will not be showing the programme on the national PLO TV - not Hamas - where six and seven year old children are being taught to go on a bus and blow themselves up to kill Israelis. If this, which I hope for, happens we will, God willing, live long enough to see real comprehensive peace.

Chairman

Thank you, Minister. It is about going forward and not looking back, building trust and a desire to find a solution. Thank you for being open and frank with the committee. I wish you well in your 24 hours in Ireland. Thank you for updating us on your work in government and on how your job is made up. Members of the joint committee are, as you see, very interested in the Middle East. There is broad support in Ireland for a two state solution. Thank you again for coming before us. We have learned a lot. It is important to listen to both sides. You made a very good case for Israel.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.15 p.m. and adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 2.45 p.m. on Thursday, 1 March 2012.