I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, to the House. He informs me that the Minister will be here shortly.
Israel-Palestine: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann:
—commends the Government for its balanced policy towards Israel/Palestine and in the light of recent tragic events affecting both communities and of Ireland's Presidency of the EU requests that the Government use its position to ensure that this problem remains a priority area for the EU;
—notes with satisfaction the presentation of the common EU submission on the construction of the wall separating and encircling the Palestinian population of the West Bank to the International Court of Justice;
—welcomes the presentation of a national submission outlining Ireland's views on the matter; and requests that the Government
(1) ensure that Ministers Cowen and Kitt continue to monitor the situation in depth and in particular to continue the practice of visiting both Israel and the West Bank/Gaza,
(2) continue to raise human rights issues with both sides, and
(3) maximise opportunities to support the beleaguered inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza in their current distress through humanitarian projects.
I have deliberately framed this motion in a way that, with the help of the Leader of House, it will not be challenged but will go through unopposed. It is such a sensitive issue that it is important we have consensus on it.
I have travelled backwards and forwards to Israel and Palestine for the past 30 years. I have a long-term relationship and we live very close to where the recent tragic suicide bombing took place. I would like particularly to draw the Minister's attention to something quite important, namely an exchange of letters that took place between myself and President Arafat, whom I visited recently. There has been much criticism stating that he has not properly condemned suicide bombing. I wrote to him thanking him for his hospitality and stated:
One matter however remains to which I feel it is necessary to return — and that is the question of suicide bombing which has tragically resumed. While I appreciate the suffering and distress to which the Palestinian people have been subjected I feel that such acts present a very serious barrier to progress. I am convinced as are all the senior representatives of the Palestinian Authority that I met that such action is not only grossly morally wrong but also politically counterproductive. Such events merely provide an alibi for further Israeli mistreatment. They also seriously undermine the work that a number of us within the democratic parliaments of Europe are attempting on behalf of the Palestinian people.
With the help of Dr. Ali Halimeh who transmitted this message directly to President Arafat I received this morning the following communication from Ramallah in which Dr. Halimeh says:
I have been instructed directly by President Arafat to state the following:
The President and the Palestinian National Authority strongly condemn all attacks against civilian targets.
Suicide bombings do not serve the national interest of the Palestinian people.
We consider all attacks directed at innocent civilians as terrorist attacks.
The Palestinian National Authority, despite the total destruction of its security infrastructure, especially in the West Bank, has managed to intercept sixteen suicide bombers in three months. We have alerted the Israeli security forces to those who we have failed to stop.
President Arafat assures you and the people of Ireland of his commitment to do everything possible to put a halt to these attacks.
That finally nails the statement, frequently heard on RTE, among other places, that President Arafat encourages them. It is a very important development and I draw the attention of the House to it.
I am naturally closer to the Israelis than to the Palestinians in the sense that this has been my lived experience. I admire the Israelis for their courage, their ingenuity, their technical skills, for making the desert blossom and so on. However, being close to them also means that I have become more aware of the betrayal of the humanitarian ideals of the Jewish people by the present Government and its descent into moral chaos. I do not believe that the use of murder by a Government as an instrument of policy should be tolerated in any society. However, I make the point that the soul of Israel is not dead for the ideals of Judaism are nobly incarnated by people like Esru, a Jerusalem plumber, an ordinary man who goes every Saturday to Hebron to try to help the distressed people, taking the elderly to hospital, collecting their medicine, trying to rebuild their shattered homes and documenting abuse like that of the Physicians for Human Rights that I witnessed at Tulkarm, distinguished consultant surgeons humiliated and abused by their fellow Israelis guarding the ghetto and kept waiting in the rain before they are allowed into the camps where they perform operations and bring in medical supplies. One of these men told me that he has been coming every Saturday for 15 years. I must also mention the Israeli soldiers and airmen who have refused to obey orders which they consider a violation of human rights laws, protocols and international laws. I quote from an open letter written to Sharon by members of the commando unit Sayeret Matkal and published in The Irish Times of Monday, 2 February, in which they stated: “We shall no longer take part in the deprivation of basic human rights from millions of Palestinians, we shall no longer serve as a shield in the crusade of the settlements, we shall no longer corrupt our moral character in missions of oppression.”
That there are decent people of conscience and of courage in Israel who plainly detest the road towards full-scale ethnic cleansing, towards which Sharon is speeding a frightened and confused nation, can be confirmed also by the position taken by one of the so-called refuseniks, Itai Swirski, who said:
We are there [in the territories] to protect 5,000 Israelis in Gaza living amongst 1.2 million Palestinians. How do we discriminate? We treat the person by the colour of his skin, by the colour of his ID card, by the colour of the licence plate on his car, by whether he wears the Kippa or not. If the person is not a settler you will see him immediately as an enemy as you will stop him at the check point and make him wait for hours losing a large part of his school time, not being able to reach a hospital, his daughter's school, his work place. If a settler, he is gone in a minute.
These idealistic young people have been denounced in the Israeli Parliament but have had the moral courage to continue their protest issuing public statements such as the following which some have seen as treasonable but which I see as the highest form of morality:
They say we did an antidemocratic act, they say we damaged Israeli democracy. This democracy has a backyard. This democracy has a basement and in this basement 3.5 million people are imprisoned, they do not take part in this wonderful democratic show that is being played on stage.
This democracy sends out soldiers to make sure that those people stay behind the scenes and do not interrupt the show. We will not take part in this show anymore. International protest must show solidarity with these brave figures.
These are Israeli voices. It is also noticeable that the four previous heads of Shin Bet, the Israeli secret service, issued a joint statement describing Sharon's policy as catastrophic, as did a former Israeli Army chief. Even more remarkable are the activities of the Association of the Bereaved in which Arab and Jewish people who have lost family members to violence meet together to help the process of personal healing and to advance the cause of peace.
Israel was established in 1948 as a result of a United Nations resolution. However, there was another part to this resolution. This sought to provide a state also for the original Palestinian inhabitants from the remains of the divided land. We are still waiting for that second shoe to drop. It is astonishing that 60 years after Europe solved its problem of conscience at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs there is still no Palestinian state. Of course, the surrounding Arab countries did little to help, and their record is shameful. In many instances they treated their Palestinian brothers as badly or worse than the Israelis. Then they fought a series of incompetent and wasteful aggressive wars against Israel — an already traumatised people. Although it was subject to attack, Israel has also consistently abused its position both in terms of morality and international law in what has come to be known as the Occupied Territories. I could quote from any number of legal sources to show that international protocols have been exceeded.
I have just returned from a visit with two Oireachtas colleagues, Deputy Liz O'Donnell and Deputy Simon Coveney, at the invitation of Christian Aid. The experience of witnessing on the ground the lived reality of the Palestinian people even for a moment was instructive. We were the victims of the capricious arrogance of some of the soldiers and security guards at the crossings although others among them were decent, humane and friendly.
One of the points I would make is that forcing young people into these situations and encouraging them to treat without respect their fellow humans is a violation of their moral spirit and a degradation of everything for which the state of Israel stood in the past and should continue to stand for. How easy is the slide into moral chaos. At the Erez checkpoint on the way into Gaza, one of the young Israeli soldiers, otherwise a pleasant lad, remarked: "I don't know why you are going in there. It is full of Arabs." It was just a casual remark and the true and awful significance only dawned on me later upon reflection. I doubt it would ever dawn on that soldier.
The Gaza Strip is a pathetic little rasher of land surrounded on three sides by Israel. It is further subdivided into three by Israeli military installations at crossing points. These can be used to isolate each separate area at the discretion of the occupying forces. There are also 16 Israeli settlements controlling 14% of the land mass. Most of the coastal fishermen are so severely restricted by the Israeli marine authorities that they cannot fish. There is 62% unemployment, the average industrial wage is less than 10% of that of Israel, 80% of the people live beneath the poverty level while 40% of the children are undernourished and anaemic. Water resources for the area are depleted by artesian wells bored within illegal settlements which export water to the irrigation projects in the Negev Desert.
In Gaza we witnessed the wholesale destruction of houses for strategic purposes, the laying waste of farm lands, bulldozing of greenhouses and farmers corralled behind electric fences watching impotently as their crops rotted on the trees. We managed to get caught in one of the arbitrary Israeli closures that take place even within the Palestinian territory while a gun battle was fought out over our heads. Although frightening I was glad that we had the opportunity to experience some of the lived daily reality of the civilians within the Gaza area. When we visited a local school, on the headmistress's desk there was an array of shell casings and ash trays full of spent bullets. These are the everyday playthings of the children in the school yard The drawings of young children from six to 18 show the same horrifying vividly caught images of dismembered bodies, rockets appearing from the sky blowing the roofs off buildings, injuring and maiming women and children. Nor can this be discounted as propaganda. As the Bible tells us, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings shall come forth truth", and this is what these children live with. Where will they be in ten years time if not in Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda or something even worse?
On the coastal strip we met a fisherman and his wife with eight children living in tiny Soweto-like cramped conditions, the smell of sewage heavy even in the primitive kitchen. This is how people live there. Yet in these awful circumstances they retain their dignity, cleanliness and courteous hospitality. One must be careful not to blame the Israelis entirely for this because in many cases poor conditions existed before the Israeli occupation. However, it was partly as a result of Israeli action that work on the sewage ponds was halted so that now on the outskirts of Gaza city people live literally in their own excrement. Children are affected by bronchial asthma and upper respiratory tract infections and this is something for which Israel, the European Union — which started the project but lacked the guts to finish it — and the Palestinian Authority, whose corrupt practices helped to syphon money away from the project, all have a responsibility. To all of them it is a moral reproach. I would like in particular to ask if the Government during its Presidency of Europe could not at least do something about the situation by providing decent sanitary arrangements or at least stopping the overflow of raw sewerage.
At Qualqilya, the wall bites deep into the heart of Palestinian territory to throw a cement noose complete with hostile machine gun posts and one functioning exit to surround tens of thousands of Palestinians. This used to be a positive interface between Israel and Palestine and there were many joint enterprise businesses. They are all in the process of collapse, co-operation being replaced by antagonism. The go-ahead young mayor of this important urban region is being undermined by constant harassment from the Israeli side, while the extreme elements find the discontent so caused to be fertile ground for recruitment.
On this occasion we also visited a small mountain village called Jayyus. While there we met a group of farmers. One of the officials told me that one of these old men of the soil who had not wept at his son's funeral had to turn away as he was describing to an interviewer what was happening to his farmland — as his eyes filled up with tears and he was ashamed. Love of the land is something with which we in Ireland can empathise.
I promised these people at the least that I would tell their story through the Irish Parliament to its people and let it stand upon the record. The first man, through an interpreter, told me how on 30 November last his nine year old daughter became seriously ill. He brought her to the gate so that she could visit a doctor to get treatment. He talked to the soldiers. They said that orders were not to open the gate even at the advertised opening times on that particular day — bear in mind this is not a border, it is people imprisoned deep within their own territory. He was told that the keys were with a roving military vehicle. He ran over to the car which swerved to avoid him but which would not stop. He waited for the authorities. A military car arrived, stopped 20 metres from him and now the girl had a very high fever. They telephoned the doctors and one came, but when he wanted to give the girl an injection through the fence he was prevented, so he threw over a box of tablets instead. Luckily she survived.
A second man similarly had a son, four years old, who was very sick. There were many people waiting at the gate. Soldiers pushed them back. He waited 15 minutes, but again was refused permission to let the car through. Soldiers told him to carry the child but it was too far. He said, "The boy will die". To this the soldiers replied that they did not care. He then laid the child on the ground in front of the vehicle and said: "This is my son. It is your fault if he dies. If he does die I will kill you." After an hour and a half they eventually allowed him to take the child through. The child luckily survived.
A third farmer told of 43 students going to school the previous day. It started raining at about 12 o'clock. The children were kept waiting in the rain for one and a half hours. The children even touched the electric fence to try and draw attention to their plight, but nobody came. Eventually a guard arrived and after another 20 minutes they were allowed through. This happens virtually every day when there are instances of police chasing and firing at Palestinians.
One well established farmer we met in the previous village took us to the fence so that we could see his incubators. Some 4,000 chicks died in one day and 7,000 on another day because they are not allowed to visit the plant to see to essentials such as food, water and heat. Now his brother lives in a shed on the premises at risk of his life.
During our brief visit we had a meeting with some Irish Jewish families who have chosen to make their life in Israel. The response to our visit was quite mixed, some being actively hostile. One of the most interesting guests was not Irish, but married to a Cork man. She was from Bratislava originally and carried the terrible tell-tale mark of a tattoo number from Auschwitz on her wrist. She told us that when she was sent to Auschwitz she was selected by the infamous Dr. Mengele who tapped her with his riding crop, brought her forward and said to her: "But you are not Jewish. You are too beautiful with your blond hair and blue eyes." She, however, confirmed that she was Jewish. He then asked her age and she replied, "13". With a subdued but powerful emphasis he said into her ear: "You are not 13, you are 16, repeat this after me, ‘I am 16 years old' and if anybody asks you your age, you say you are 16," and she did. This was how she escaped when all the children under 16 were gassed.
She told me that every time there is a bomb in Jerusalem she has nightmares. She sees again the camps, the dogs and the brutal Gestapo officers. She also said she sympathised with the plight of the Arabs but, she said, "What are we to do? We only want to live."
It is very difficult to respond in the light of such testimony. As a Christian one can only be humbled and shamed by what was inflicted upon such innocent decent people. However, I would also have to ask: would her nightmares not have been worse if she had come with us and seen the wall and the ghetto, for such it is, that has been created by Jewish people into which they have put their Semitic cousins, the Palestinians? If she had seen the concrete watch towers and automatic machine gun emplacements, the guards, the uniforms and the dogs, could she have borne it? I believe this is one of the problems in Israel, that many decent people cannot confront what is being done in their name by the Sharon Government and some of its predecessors because if they did, their whole moral universe would collapse.
The Israeli Government collaborates with them in their blindness. I gave an example the other day of the wall at Tulkarm which is four storeys high and of grey concrete from the Israeli side. It looks like and is felt by most Israeli civilians to be a noise barrier. With regard to the infamous wall, few people who have the experience of driving along its course could accept this primary function of security. If it was it would be along the green line, the 1967 border. It reaches insidiously into Palestinian territory which is already sprinkled with spots and looks, on the map, like it had an attack of measles.
Presently under construction, apparently with the collaboration of firms with connections to Irish companies such as Cement Roadstone Holdings, the wall when finished will have a devastating impact on about 60 towns, villages and refugee camps. I regard any such collaboration by Irish companies as infamous, shameful and indefensible and I call upon Cement Roadstone to investigate the situation and take immediate steps to disinfect itself from such a reprehensible undertaking. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his indulgence. I will complete my contribution at the end of the debate.
I second the motion and congratulate Senator Norris on a powerful explanation of what is going on in the Middle East following his trip there.
Senator Norris's report is particularly potent in that despite the fact that he has skilfully managed to obtain all-party agreement on this issue and that he has managed to produce a balanced motion, he has reached conclusions which must be difficult for him because he has had a tradition in this House of being particularly understanding of the Israeli point of view. That required a great deal of courage. The report, therefore, also carries a great deal of credibility and conviction because in it Senator Norris says things extremely hurtful to the Israeli Government. It is important such things are said by people sympathetic to the Israeli people.
The delegation to the Middle East was sponsored — Senator Norris can correct me if I am wrong — by Christian Aid which, as far as I know, has no particular bias or axe to grind in the Middle East. It holds only Christian and humanitarian values. Senator Norris's companions, who presumably agree with the substance of what he had to say, were two Members from the other House who are not identified in the public mind, and certainly not in mine, with the Palestinian cause. The credibility of the report should not be underestimated. I find it extremely impressive because I have long been sympathetic, like Senator Norris, to the State of Israel and have believed for a long time that it has been a nation and people under siege. Everyone in this country identifies to some extent with a nation in that position, fighting a war for existence more than anything else. The problem, as explained to us this evening, is that particular fight for existence and survival has, in certain instances, turned into a war of oppression, domination, aggression and slaughter and it is making life miserable for sections of people there.
Senator Norris made a powerful contribution. It is important that people like Senator Norris, when returning from such visits, do their parliamentary duty and explain what is happening to Government which often does not hear as much on the ground as it hears from its advisers and those who sit in Iveagh House. I do not wish to be pejorative, it is simply a reflection of what has happened. Senator Norris's contribution was very significant. Perhaps the Minister of State will relay his remarks to the Minister when he informs him about this debate.
The letter which Senator Norris read from Yassar Arafat's representative — much of what he said should be emphasised — stated quite specifically that Yassar Arafat's organisation condemned the suicide bombings. The message should go out that he stated that unequivocally. There is a great deal of ambiguity in that regard.
On many occasions, I have heard Israeli spokesmen saying Yassar Arafat and his followers refuse to condemn suicide bombers. It is important, if we are to deal with people like Yassar Arafat, as the Government does, that we recognise that he condemns suicide bombings and that they have no support, tacit or open, from him. It is also important the Israeli Embassy in Ireland and the Israeli Government understand that many people now understand and accept that message.
It is important we recognise the dangers of what can happen in such situations. Whereas we may sympathise with Israel's great fear of persecution, something which makes all nations behave in a manner we may not understand and which history has shown us people do when under threat, the result of that fear will be — this was mentioned in Senator Norris's speech — that it acts as a recruitment for the worst type of terrorists on the Palestinian side. We have seen this in situations closer to home where oppression has led to the creation of terrorists and public support for terrorism. There is a danger that people from these sectors will flock to the al-Qaeda flag and that, in desperation, not that it can offer them a great deal, they will become involved in acts of violence with which they would not normally be associated, and acts of pseudo-anarchy in a demonstration against those whom they view as their oppressors. There is a real danger of that happening closer to home also.
Where does the United States stand on this issue? Ireland has a great deal of influence in the United States. Does it support the war so vividly described by Senator Norris? Can the Irish Government put pressure on the United States, which provides tacit support for the worst atrocities of this regime? I think it can and it is important the Government does so. What can Ireland do to help? We will not persuade Prime Minister Sharon to do a U-turn.
I was struck by the fact that Cement Roadstone Holdings, one of our main companies, is assisting in the building of the wall. We are entitled to ask whether we should approve of one of the largest public companies in this State taking what is obviously not a neutral stand but one very much in favour of one side in this conflict. I am not an advocate of ethical investment in the purest sense because one then goes down a road and it is almost impossible to stop. One cannot, in a situation of war and slaughter, be neutral if one is assisting one side in the creation of a ghetto. In such a situation, one cannot wipe one's hands saying it has nothing to do with one while providing the concrete which creates that ghetto.
I thank Senator Norris for bringing to the attention of this House a matter which would otherwise not have been debated but for his vivid description of the situation. I ask the Minister of State to take Senator Norris's message to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who will then, presumably, discuss it at the meetings of the EU Foreign Affairs Ministers under the Irish Presidency and where he will exert whatever influence he can on Israel, the United States and the Palestinians to take the messages of this visit to heart.
I compliment our colleagues led by Senator Norris, who was strongly influential in ensuring the motion was tabled. He and I have visited the Middle East together as part of parliamentary delegations and he travels there regularly in a personal capacity. His information, therefore, is more relevant and up to date than that in the media reports on which most of us rely. It is salutary that Senator Norris, in condemning the most recent suicide bombing and its consequences in the streets of Jerusalem, also pointed out that eight Palestinians died the same day, yet this had not been conveyed to the international media with the same force. That is part of what is going on.
All of us are familiar with the propaganda war perpetrated during the Troubles from 1970 until the ceasefire in 1994. Propaganda was an extremely effective weapon used by both sides as they sought to influence the hearts and minds of the public. The same is happening between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. There is a constant battle for the hearts and minds of the international community and, depending on one's level of emotional response, there is no more potent image than bleeding bodies and discarded limbs lying on a street in Jerusalem. This is followed by publication of the most shocking photographs or video images of a smiling suicide bomber telling us what he or she had intended to do.
The most recent example was not only disgusting but sad. A young mother with two children believed she was dying for her faith and going to paradise, yet she left a husband and two small children motherless. One wonders whether any cause is worth that. I am reminded of Daniel O'Connell's famous quote in the 19th century which was often misinterpreted and reinterpreted depending on which side one took on the Nationalist question. He said the freedom of Ireland was not worth the shedding of one drop of Irish blood. That is as relevant today in Ireland and internationally, particularly in the Middle East, as it was then.
I will concentrate on one or two issues as Senator Norris has covered wide ground. I visited the Middle East twice and one aspect of the trips that remained with me was my journey to the refugee camp at Gamala in the West Bank. We visited a medical centre funded by UNRWA. There was one medical doctor, two nursing staff and at least 200 young Palestinian mothers queuing with their babies for medical attention. The centre was totally under resourced and the staff were fighting a losing battle in attempting to come to grips with the medical problems with which they were being presented every minute. The final recommendation in the motion, "to maximise opportunities to support the beleaguered inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza in their current distress through humanitarian projects", should be acted on by the Minister of State.
I will travel to the Middle East shortly.
I am pleased the Minister of State intends to travel to the area in the near future.
That is splendid.
I refer to a document recently presented by Mr. Olav Axselsen of Norway to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which I am privileged to be a member, on the position of Palestinian refugees. He draws attention to their plight in two sections of the draft recommendations. The document states:
"4. The situation of 3.9 million refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), including 1.2 million living in camps in very miserable conditions, is not only unacceptable from a humanitarian point of view but constitutes a major threat for the stability and security in the region.
5. The Assembly considers that the services of UNRWA must be fully maintained until a permanent solution is found. The international community should step up its voluntary financial contribution to the budget of UNRWA with a view to at least allowing it to reflect the natural growth of the Palestinian refugee population being assisted by this Agency."
I implore the Minister of State to ensure, through the EU or other intergovernmental agencies with which he is working, the funding for UNRWA is not only be maintained but significantly increased. The current contribution to UNRWA is like dropping a pebble in the sea even though we may salve our consciences by thinking we are doing something that will achieve a solution.
I have been studying the question of school text books in both Israel and Palestine for some time. A powerful Jewish lobby is in operation, mainly out of the United States. Many American politicians are cowed to such an extent on the Israeli-Arab conflict that they do not engage on the issue publicly or, if they do, they parrot whatever they believe will win votes, which is usually a pro-Israeli position. That will not lead to effective dialogue and, consequently, a just solution. Severe criticisms have been made of the Palestinians. A documentary broadcast by the BBC a few months ago highlighted a shocking indoctrination in Palestinian children of vicious, anti-Semite rhetoric. However, when I delved further, I discovered the position is not much better in Israel. The Palestinian Authority has managed to improve the position. The main reason these quotes appeared in the television documentary and on American-based pro-Jewish websites is that up to 1994 the Palestinian Authority used Egyptian and Jordanian text books, which had been printed in the early part of the century. Similarly, many Israeli text books in the 1950s and 1960s were based on a pre-independence position and contained much invective about Arabs.
Israeli school text books as well as children's story books, according to recent academic studies and surveys, portray Palestinians and Arabs as "murderers, rioters, suspicious" and generally backward and unproductive. Direct de-legitimisation and negative stereotyping of Palestinians and Arabs are the rule rather than the exception in Israeli text books. On the other side of the coin, many of the text books used in Palestine do not take account of the reality in Israel. For example, Israel is not on the maps published therein. The Palestinian ministry of education argues that, until the territorial question is resolved, they cannot show maps.
There are many examples of anti-Jewish sentiment in the books but the Palestinian Authority has made improvements and is trying hard to reduce and eliminate such traditional invective so that children on both sides of the conflict will have a growing tolerance of each other's position at least. However, we should return to this issue because it is complex and extremely important in the context of the attitude and tolerance level among school children who will comprise the next generation. Will the Palestinian children put on uniforms and act similarly to their forebears? Will the Israeli children become part of another intifada?
I wish the Minister of State well on his visit to the Middle East and I also wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his capacity as president of the European Council of Ministers, well. His bravery and courage in the face of severe Israeli criticism have been well justified. During his most recent visit to the country, the Israelis admitted Ireland has taken an even-handed approach to the resolution of the conflict. The Irish position is about equality, fairness, justice and the right of the Israeli state to exist within secure borders but it is also about the right of the Palestinian Authority and its people to achieve self-determination.
I support the motion in the names of Senators Norris, Ross, O'Toole, Henry and Quinn and I fully endorse the sentiments it contains. I thank Senator Norris for his excellent contribution.
Senator Norris placed a significant statement from Ramallah on the record of the House. It is significant that Chairman Arafat has stated in unequivocal terms the total opposition of the Palestinian Authority and its people to the suicide bombers, the result of whose actions we see on a constant basis on television. I ask the members of the Irish media who report on our debate to highlight that statement in order to ensure there is no confusion.
A former colleague, the late Deputy Jim Mitchell, visited the West Bank in the latter years of his life. He described to me in clear terms the abject poverty that exists there and in Gaza. I was struck by Jim Mitchell's comments because there is no doubt that the region in question is a wealthy part of the world. Senator Norris outlined appalling statistics to the effect that the unemployment rate in the region runs at 62%. Such statistics provide the kind of incentive necessary to force people to go to fanatical extremes and take up arms against the Jewish people. We have a responsibility, as Europeans in a neutral state and as supporters of the peace process in this country, to do everything in our power to support the road map which is in place but which is faltering.
I have always been a supporter of the Israeli State. The collective guilt on all Europeans after the Second World War should never be forgotten. It was only right and proper that after that war the Jewish people were given a homeland which they could call their own. However, that should not be misinterpreted as ensuring that the Israelis have a right to do what they will with the people, particularly Arabs and Palestinians, around them.
We need to be even-handed and balanced in our debates. The type of balance contained in the motion and in the excellent contribution of Senator Mooney needs to be put in place. Otherwise our debates will simply take the form of statements on the last atrocity. There have been so many atrocities on all sides over such a long period it would be the wrong impression to give. I support the right of the Israeli people to their own state. I also support the right of Palestinians to have their own state. I further support efforts towards peaceful co-habitation in that region and, as Europeans, we have a responsibility to bring that about.
There have been two positive developments in recent days. Whatever one's view of Mr. Sharon and his coalition Government in Israel, I welcome the statement he made yesterday in which he gave an unequivocal commitment to bring about the beginning of the end of the process of the settlements in the Gaza Strip by the summer of this year. I accept that huge questions hang over whether he can bring this about. However, even independent commentators in the region are saying that the veracity of his statement yesterday and the tone of an interview he gave last Monday are such that he cannot go back on what he has said. The House should monitor that commitment, which I welcome. Mr. Sharon said yesterday that because of the security burden he has now accepted the legitimacy of ending the settlement process. For a range of reasons, it cannot make sense for the Israeli State to continue the ridiculous policy of containment and of ensuring further settlements in the region. I support what Mr. Sharon said yesterday but we must see the colour of his money in terms of bringing about what he has promised. The House and the European Union have an absolute responsibility to ensure his commitment is enforced.
The Israeli Labour Party of Shimon Peres has shown tremendous courage in the face of terrible provocation from Mr. Sharon and his party, particularly during the last general election, in supporting the statement made yesterday. The Israeli Labour Party should be supported for saying the difficult things that need to be said to the Israeli people at this time. I welcome the significant exchange of prisoners that was made last week. However, there is a need for further such exchanges.
It does not make sense for the Israeli Government to continue its war of attrition against the Palestinian people for a host of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the Israeli economy is in tatters. The economy of Israel was very successful until recently but because of the massive security bill it is being obliged to foot, it is now in tatters. It makes pure economic sense for the Israeli Government to reach out and make peace with the Palestinian people.
I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, who has arrived in the House for this important debate.
If we were to achieve a state of peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis it would be internationally recognised and would do a great deal to help the emerging and constant tension between the Arab world and the rest of the world and also that between Muslims, Christians and Jews. This is a theatre of international action in which we must make every effort to bring about a peaceful resolution.
Two weeks ago there was an excellent article by Ms Nuala Haughey in The Irish Times in which she delved into the mind of the suicide bomber. Ms Haughey was reporting on the then latest atrocity which had been carried out by a female suicide bomber. I congratulate her on bringing to our attention this kind of fanaticism. Even if a workable deal can be brought about and enforced, we must see an end to violence by Hamas and other extreme terrorist organisations on behalf of the Palestinian people. This is an important issue. Nuala Haughey identified the kind of fanaticism that is at the centre of many of the suicide bomb attacks. If I was an Israeli, how would I react to the bombings that are constantly taking place in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other parts of Israel? The only way forward is for a complete end to violence in the region. Those groups that may not be central to the current Palestinian Authority must play their role in that regard.
I commend the motion to the House and I thank Senator Norris and his colleagues for tabling it. We should monitor the new commitments made 24 hours ago in order to ensure that they are honoured.
I apologise that I was not present for the earlier part of the debate. I always enjoy coming to the Seanad and listening to the debates, which are always good, vibrant and stimulating. Unfortunately I have another appointment at 6.30 p.m. with the new US envoy to the North, Mr. Reiss, so I will not be able to stay as long as I would like. However, I will study Members' contributions in due course once they have been printed.
I welcome this opportunity to inform the House about our Presidency programme and action in respect of the Middle East peace process. There have been few positive developments in the region in recent months and I must be frank and state that prospects for progress in the short term are not overly encouraging. Nonetheless, I attach great importance to this issue, and during our Presidency we shall play an active role in international peace efforts, in particular as a member of the international quartet of the EU, Russia, the US and United Nations.
We have conducted an intensive round of meetings in the last few weeks. Beginning in December, the director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry visited Dublin, where he had intensive discussions with me and with officials of my Department. The Palestinian Foreign Minister, Nabil Shaath, came to Dublin on 9 January for meetings with the Taoiseach and myself. I then visited Israel on 15-16 January, where I had discussions with President Katsav, Prime Minister Sharon, Foreign Minister Shalom and the leader of the opposition, Shimon Peres. I subsequently travelled to Egypt where, on 17 January, I met President Mubarak, Foreign Minister Maher and the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amre Moussa. On Monday of this week, senior officials of my Department had meetings in the occupied Palestinian territories with President Arafat, Prime Minister Qurei and Foreign Minister Shaath. Prime Minister Qurei is due to visit Dublin next Monday, his first visit outside the territories, to meet the Taoiseach and myself.
Our aim has been to urge an end to violence and to explore with the parties possible means for breaking the current deadlock on the implementation of the road map agreed by the quartet and endorsed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1515. I have made considerable efforts to build confidence in the Presidency and the European Union as viable interlocutors. I gave particular emphasis to this matter in a speech which I delivered at Tel Aviv University on 15 January, the text of which is available on my Department's website.
The road map contains a series of steps to be taken by both parties with a view to building confidence and security, leading eventually to a Palestinian state. It is time bound and was intended to be implemented over two years. It sets measurable objectives for both sides and provides for the development of international monitoring mechanisms. Unfortunately, neither side has fulfilled its obligations under the road map. Either for political or practical reasons, the steps envisaged in the first phase of the road map have not been taken.
During my recent visit to Israel and Egypt, and in my discussions with the Palestinian Foreign Minister in Dublin, I advanced the idea that perhaps, in the first instance, smaller steps should be taken. I suggested that if the significant initial steps envisaged by the road map are too difficult or steep at this time, they might be broken down or implemented in phases. These small steps could begin to address the concerns of Israelis about security and action against terrorism, while relieving the suffering which Palestinians face in almost every aspect of their daily lives. They might also revive the contacts at political and security level which are necessary if progress is to be made. This idea was well received by the Palestinian side and found some interest with the Israeli leaders whom I met. It also attracted support during my discussions with the President and Foreign Minister of Egypt as well as the Secretary-General of the Arab League.
I hope to develop these ideas in discussions with Prime Minister Qurei during his visit to Dublin next Monday. We shall also discuss other developments in the region, including the prospects for a resumption of high level contact between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Following our contacts with the parties, the Taoiseach has this morning issued a statement calling, on behalf of the European Union, for the Palestinian and Israeli Prime Ministers to meet as soon as possible as a first step in the resumption of meaningful dialogue between the two parties. I hope that such contact might be possible within the coming days.
Prior to my most recent visit to the region, I had contacts with US Secretary of State Powell and representatives of the other members of the quartet. I outlined the purpose of my visit and our thinking on ways of bringing forward the peace process. To Secretary Powell, I emphasised the need for US engagement and the necessity for this engagement to be visible to the parties. The Secretary General of my Department also had talks with senior US officials in Washington last week. Two high level US envoys visited Israel last week and met with Israeli and Palestinian representatives to review possibilities for action. I also had bilateral discussions on the Middle East in recent days with a number of EU colleagues, including the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Spain, UK and Netherlands. They, like most of my European colleagues, strongly support Presidency efforts to assert Europe's role in efforts to bring peace to the eastern Mediterranean.
A major obstacle to progress in the peace process is the construction by Israel of a separation barrier which extends deep into the Palestinian territories. This has been the subject of statements by the European Union and others who have urged Israel to consider the long-term consequences of this construction. The barrier figured prominently in my discussions in Israel two weeks ago. My officials examined sections of the barrier earlier this week and were deeply disturbed by what they saw. The barrier is in places a wall, at least in those sections which cut through urban areas. The wall is extremely high and passes within feet of houses occupied by Palestinian families. It also encloses considerable tracts of agricultural and barren land.
The Israeli authorities have assured me that the barrier is being constructed for security purposes only and is reversible. One can only hope that this is so. However, the Palestinians see it as an attempt to unilaterally redraw the 1967 borders. Nobody could ultimately object to the building of a separation barrier on Israeli territory or even one which followed the Green Line. What is objectionable about the current wall is that Israel is largely building it on land falling within the occupied Palestinian territories.
On 21 October last year, Ireland and our European Union partners co-sponsored a resolution in the General Assembly of the United Nations which called on Israel to stop and reverse construction of the wall and asked the Secretary General of the United Nations to report on Israeli compliance. When, at the end of November, the Secretary General reported that there was no evidence of Israeli compliance, the General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in occupied Palestinian territory.
This resolution was adopted on 8 December last. The European Union abstained on the vote. The decision to abstain was taken after intense consultations and was based on the conviction of many member states that transferring the matter of the wall to a legal forum would do nothing to advance the political process necessary for peace. Abstention did not in any way suggest a change in the European Union's position that the wall was in contravention of international law.
On receiving the resolution of the General Assembly, the court invited member states of the United Nations to submit statements or information to the court which might be of assistance in its deliberations. Some member states of the European Union felt that it would be desirable for a common position to be submitted to the court. Other states had a strong preference for individual national submissions to the court. After considerable discussion, including at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 26 January, it was agreed that there would be a common EU submission and that individual member states might make national submissions based on established European Union positions. The common submission reflected the texts of Presidency statements to the UN General Assembly on 20 October and 8 December. The texts of these statements were annexed to the covering letter.
Essentially, the Union's position is that the building of the wall within the occupied Palestinian territories is in contradiction to international law but that the General Assembly's request that the ICJ issue an advisory opinion will not help the efforts of the two parties to relaunch a political dialogue and is therefore inappropriate. However, contrary to some press reports, the EU has not asked the ICJ to refrain from issuing an advisory opinion. There would have been no consensus to adopt such a position.
In addition, the Government authorised me to submit a national statement. This statement, which is fully consistent with the EU common position, sets out the legal basis for Ireland's opinion that the construction of the wall in the occupied territories is in violation of international law. In all, ten of the 15 current member states of the Union submitted national statements to the court.
Both statements were transmitted to the registrar of the International Court of Justice in The Hague last Friday. The written submissions of all interested parties, including the Israelis and Palestinians, have now been received by the court. It is expected that oral submissions will commence on 23 February and that the court will deliver its advisory opinion to the General Assembly late this summer. The rules of procedure of the International Court of Justice do not permit me to make the text Irish submission publicly available at this time but it is firmly grounded in well known Irish positions on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territories and the applicability of international humanitarian and human rights law in this case.
As the motion before the House urges, it is my intention to remain closely engaged in the search for peace in the Middle East. I have already outlined the extensive contacts which we have recently undertaken. I hope to pay a further visit to the region myself a little later in the Presidency. The possibility of high level Presidency representation at the Arab League summit meeting in Tunis in late March is also under consideration should it appear that the summit will take concrete action on the peace process.
In the meantime, the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories continues to be a matter of grave concern. Development Cooperation Ireland will continue its work in the Palestinian territories. This will involve a visit in the coming days by a programming mission to develop a country programme for implementation over the next three years. Development Cooperation Ireland's existing interim programme for 2003-04 allocates €3 million to assistance to the Palestinian people. The Minister of State at my Department with responsibility for Development Cooperation Ireland, Deputy Tom Kitt, intends to visit the Palestinian territories later this year to inspect the implementation of Irish programmes.
The European Union will also continue its extensive funding in the region. The plight of the Palestinian Authority is a cause for grave concern. It relies far too heavily for its continued existence on funding from the Union. I appeal to other donors to play a greater role and for Israel to release funds belonging to the Palestinian Authority.
Humanitarian and human rights issues are always prominent in our thinking on this conflict. The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is fully applicable to the occupied Palestinian territories and should be observed by the Israeli occupation forces. The Palestinian people live under military occupation, subject to restrictions on movement, curfews, arbitrary detention and daily petty humiliations. Significant numbers of Palestinians continue to be killed in the course of Israeli military actions. Ireland has consistently urged the Government of Israel to address humanitarian issues as a means of countering the atmosphere which generates support for terrorism.
It is important to remember that Israelis are also suffering. Innocent men, women and children have been the victims of random terrorist violence, including suicide bombings. Israelis have a right to live in a society free from the threat of terror. Again, we have urged the Palestinian Authority to do all that remains in its power to act against those who plan and execute suicide bombings and other acts of terror. Not only are such actions wrong in themselves, they are the most potent weapon available to those who seek to justify the building of the separation barrier.
The outlines of an eventual settlement to Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been clear for some time; two states, living side by side in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. As long ago as 1980, my distinguished predecessor, the late Brian Lenihan, called for the establishment of a Palestinian state in his Bahrain Declaration. This subsequently became the policy of the European Union and is now universally accepted as one of the requirements for a comprehensive settlement. The two-state solution is at the heart of Resolution 1397 which was adopted by the UN Security Council with strong support from Ireland when we sat on the Council in 2002. The two-state solution is the basic premise of the road map presented to the parties by the international quartet in April of last year.
Amid the gloom currently prevalent in the region, there are some small signs of hope. The Geneva initiative promoted by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabo is a welcome indication that rational discussion between senior representatives on both sides is possible. This plan points to some ways in which the difficult final status issues such as Jerusalem and the right of return of refugees might be addressed. I was pleased to see that the authors were in Brussels to brief the European Union's High Representative, Dr. Solana, earlier this week. Discussions about dates for a visit to Dublin are in progress and I look forward to welcoming them in the near future. Other initiatives among civil society representatives are also in train involving academics, political figures and former military and intelligence officers. This all serves to show that dialogue is possible, even on very difficult and emotional issues.
I am also encouraged by suggestions that the Arab League may move to reiterate its initiative adopted at the Beirut Summit almost two years ago. This idea, advanced by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was that in return for Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries, relations with all its Arab neighbours would be normalised. Normalisation would involve de jure recognition of Israel by the entire membership of the Arab League, the establishment of diplomatic relations, the establishment of trade links and the opening of possibilities for technical and investment exchanges in all sectors. At the time this proposal received insufficient attention in Israel, but with the road map on the table this initiative could prove to be complementary. It might also serve to reassure Israel as to the wisdom of proceeding towards a peace agreement with its neighbours, Syria and Lebanon. I urge the leaders of the Arab League to use the opportunity of their forthcoming summit to advance the prospect of normalisation to Israel once again. They should emphasise their desire for a comprehensive peace which can only be of benefit to all the countries of the region. I also urge the Israeli leadership to consider carefully the benefits and advantages they could reap from a normal relationship with their wider neighbourhood and assuming their proper role in their natural economic and political region.
The recent proposal by the Syrian President that talks on a peace agreement should resume is also encouraging. Israeli President Katsav's suggestion of talks in Jerusalem was welcome in many respects. Prime Minister Sharon's suggestion that talks should resume without pre-conditions is positive. However, an insistence that talks cannot resume where they last left off should in my view not itself become a pre-condition for negotiations. At the time of the last peace negotiations in 2000 under the auspices of the US, the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria were not very great. The talks should be resumed without preconditions on either side and with the support of the international community.
Inaction in the peace process is not an acceptable option while Israelis and Palestinians are being killed and the situation on the ground moves further away from a negotiated settlement. The Government is convinced that with political will on both sides and an end to violent activity, it will be possible to make early progress towards the realisation of the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, within borders based on those of 1967, in peace, security and prosperity.
Israelis need not live in a fortress, surrounded by hostile neighbours, where they are in danger of walking the streets or driving the roads, where young soldiers — boys and girls — are placed at constant risk and where a great part of their national resources are consumed by the burden of defence.
Palestinians need not live in hopelessness and indignity, where young people are encouraged to blow themselves up, where homes are bulldozed and destroyed, where employment is scarce to non-existent, where people are not free to travel around their country and where emigration seems to offer the only escape route.
We must help the people of Israel and Palestine to find the courage and wisdom to build a new peace — courage to face down those who would reject compromise and wisdom to understand that putting an end to the insecurity and suffering of their neighbours is in their own long-term interest. If we can achieve this, the Holy Land may yet become a land of peace and prosperity.
I want to be entirely constructive for a number of reasons, first, because this motion is of such importance nobody should play politics with it in any way, and I would not dream of doing that, and, second, I have considerable regard for the Minister's efforts in this area and am aware of the considerable influence he has, at least for the next six months in particular.
I hope an attempt will be made to persuade some of those in Israel, who may be aware of what is happening in countries like ours, that some of their responses to what is being said are poorly thought out and serve no purpose. If I was an Israeli and was aware of Irish politics, I would have grave cause for concern when a motion is put to us in the name of my good friend, Senator Norris, because Senator Norris was the best friend Israel had in this House, and he remains its best friend. Those who represent Israel here ought to be aware that what is happening there, however horrified they may be by what is done to them by terrorism, is losing them the unqualified sympathy of their friends.
Some 35 years ago I was at a debate in UCD in which somebody who is now quite close to this Government moved a motion of support for the struggles of the Palestinian people. I opposed it, as I believe most Irish people would have done then because we all started out — those of us who were born shortly after the war and as we learnt about the war — with an instinctive support for Israel because of what Senator Hayes spoke about earlier. I was forced to reverse my position because the more I learned, the more unhappy I became.
I visited the occupied territories in the 1980s and listened to people there at a time when there was no serious terrorism campaign controlled by any institution because there were no governing institutions in the occupied territories then. Even then, the Israeli response was disproportionate and finally counterproductive.
It is worth repeating that military force can silence a problem but it never solves it. Even if Israel managed by military means to stop all terrorist activity, the scale of the hurt it would impose on a whole generation of young people in Palestine would mean that in some way or other the issue would arise again. The Minister is right. It is only by dialogue and agreement that a solution can be reached.
It is important to remember that the Palestinian Authority is no longer a governing authority. The level of military destruction and fracturing of its territory means the authority is barely able to keep itself in existence. To suggest it has the capacity to suppress the activities of other armed elements in the territories is to grossly over simplify it. The only way we will succeed and contribute to bringing about a peaceful resolution is by using the weapons of persuasion. Suicide bombing, apart from being morally reprehensible, is the most politically damaging thing that could be done to the cause of the Palestinian people. It needs to be stated also that a disproportionate military response which, to be generous, shows an indifference to the safety of civilians and, in particular, an indifference to the safety of children, is doing Israel and its number one ally no good in the eyes of the peoples of western Europe. The opinion poll last year, which showed that most Europeans thought the single biggest threat to world security was Israel, produced a classically superficial response, namely, that it showed anti-Semitism is alive and well in Europe again. This has got nothing to do with anti-Semitism. The response of the people I know, ordinary decent people in this country, would be the same whatever the religious or ethnic origins of the Government of Israel. If anything, the history of anti-Semitism has diluted and delayed the response that is now becoming visible. People were aware of this accusation and were slow to react because of what had happened, as described by Senator Hayes. However, people will not stand back any longer. Good people in the United States saw what happened to Rachel Corrie and it changed their thinking. Instead of an honest admission that it was in some way a wrongful act — I am not saying we wanted somebody to admit it was deliberate — what we got was a deliberate obfuscation and pretence that nobody did anything wrong in the killing of Rachel Corrie. That is reverberating through the United States and Europe. Rachel Corrie will become a symbol of the moment when public opinion shifted. It is in Israel's interest to listen carefully to moderate, balanced voices, such as our Minister for Foreign Affairs.
This is not to suggest for a second that the Palestinians do not have obligations. In any situation like this the most powerful in terms of military force, those with the strongest allies are those from whom we are entitled to expect the most sophisticated response. We are entitled to expect something more sophisticated from Israel than the wall the Minister has so well described and so eloquently denounced. What we are entitled to expect from them is balance and a realisation that there is no future for Israel as a peaceful state if it believes the solution to the current crisis is entirely or overwhelmingly based on military force.
I welcome the Minister and thank him for his contribution and the commitment and insight he has shown and the statements he has made about continuing efforts on behalf of the Government to bring peace to this area.
I am glad to support the motion and welcome the opportunity to speak on the continuing depressing situation in Israel and Palestine. The ongoing difficulties in the Middle East are complex and burdened by a history that goes back to Biblical times. Some interventions over the years have not helped and have led to an escalation. Unfortunately, there is little sign of a resolution to the problem in the short term. It appears one is either pro-Jew or pro-Arab and there is little room in between. The clashes of culture, hampered by history, have resulted in a constant collision course.
We all empathise with the Jewish people and the history of the Holocaust and so on, as outlined by Senator Hayes, and the world hangs its head in shame that such atrocities were allowed to happen. In 1948 the international community set about correcting what it perceived as an injustice by establishing and recognising the State of Israel. In doing so, it abolished the legitimate right and claim of the Palestinian people to have their own state, following the break-up of the Ottoman empire. The Palestinian people are looking for no more than what the Jewish people looked for in 1947. The international community has, yet again, a responsibility to ensure that injustice is corrected. The 1948 agreement was flawed, not in principle but in application. Its vision was too narrow and that decision ultimately led to the difficulties we see today. It should have been a more regional divide, allowing for sustainable Arab nations, including a State of Palestine, and a State of Israel. The River Jordan, a strategic natural asset in the region, had to be available to both sides. Jerusalem, with its religious significance, so important to both cultures, should have resided as an international city, under joint authority.
Speaking of the international community, recent world events clearly show the time has come to examine the workings and the authority of the United Nations and, in particular, the Security Council. The power of veto as exercised by permanent members has and is being abused time after time. Is this in the interest of the United Nations, with legitimate world authority, presiding over world order? My opinions may differ from others. I firmly believe what we have now created in Israel and Palestine is unsustainable and non-viable and will continue to lead to violence and bloodshed. There can be no peace without justice. The Palestinian people have not been given justice, which is denied to them daily.
I emphasise I do not in any way support the terrorist actions of the Palestinian people. I do not even attempt to understand the mindset of suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is terrorism at its worst. I welcome the statement this evening by Senator Norris, that Mr. Arafat has also clearly denounced such atrocities. Ireland has a close affiliation with the Middle East and it should not be forgotten the role we have played in promoting peace there.
Hear, hear.
Since 1957, we had a permanent presence in the Middle East. We have lost many lives in the Middle East endeavouring to bring about a peaceful settlement. There have been advances in areas such as Lebanon where this country contributed so much. The Lebanese people have shown their gratitude and are eternally grateful for our contribution. It appears that when one problem is solved in the Middle East, another surfaces. That is why I firmly believe no one area can be dealt with in isolation. It has to be a regional settlement. I welcome the Minister's remarks about the comments by the Arab League, which is endeavouring to have a more regional settlement.
I spent a number of years in the region while serving in the Defence Forces. Through the course of my work I have spoken to both sides of the divide. I have listened to impassioned ideology but at all times I heard an undercurrent of hatred and a failure to accept the other point of view. I have seen injustices on both sides and for every one I could name on one side, I could name one on the other. I could express outrage at events I witnessed and at the behaviour of the Israelis or the disregard for human life by the Palestinians. All of this would be to no avail as there is wrong on both sides.
I make one observation, that a democratic state has to uphold certain principles even if those opposed to that state do not share those principles, such as justice and the right to a fair trial. Collective punishments by the Israeli Government are wrong. I can never accept the Israeli viewpoint on this. I cannot accept that the Israeli Government and the IDF stood by over the massacres in Sabra and Shatila. Equally, I cannot accept the attack on Israeli athletes in Munich and the number of suicide bombings. It is hard to see a renewal of the ceasefire and the road map because of the instability of the Palestinian Authority. As the Minister said, there will have to be a slow, smaller step approach to the endeavour of bringing about a peace settlement.
On the issue of the wall, it is a wall and not a security fence. Members will remember the tearing down of the Berlin wall and the symbolism associated with that. A bigger wall is now being created, which is a reversal of those issues and that symbolism. The Berlin wall was 3.6 metres high with a length of 155 kilometres whereas the Israeli wall is eight metres high with a length of 730 km. This is wrong and I welcome that the Government has chosen to make a submission to the International Court of Justice on this issue.
I hope that Israel will countenance what is being said by the international community. Just because the international community may differ with Israel does not mean it does not support its right to have a state. Israel should listen to its friends.
I welcome the Minister to the House and commend Senator Norris for his even-handed motion. Even-handedness is the theme I wish to discuss in this debate. If the EU is to have a role in the Middle East, it should not be a partisan one favouring one side over the other but one of an honest broker. It is, in theory at least, open to the EU to fill a gap that has been created by the long-established pro-Israel policy of the United States. Most people in the Middle East are suspicious of the United States because, despite its protests to the contrary, it has for a long time pursued a policy that has leaned entirely to the Israeli side. Some in Europe say that because the Americans are on the side of Israel, Europeans should be on the side of the Palestinians to balance this. I am certain Members will disagree with the thinking behind that view. What is needed is not a balance between those lining up on each side but an approach that will make progress towards an eventual solution to this conflict, which has been ongoing throughout my lifetime.
In some respects the situation under discussion is similar to one much closer to home, that of Northern Ireland. The similarity is that in both cases it is clear to any unbiased observer that the only possible end is for both sides to find a way of living together in some kind of peace. Victory for either side on its own terms is out of the question. However, it is difficult to see that point clearly when one is in the thick of these disputes and that is where the role of an outsider can be very valuable, and where the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the EU could come in.
If an outsider can avoid getting embroiled in the day-to-day disputes and concentrate his efforts on trying to get the parties to take a long view, that outsider will have performed a very useful function. If, during the period of the Irish EU Presidency, the Minister could succeed in getting the EU's bona fides as an honest broker established on both sides, it would be a major achievement and a solid foundation for making further progress that could continue into the future.
Achieving this is more difficult than it sounds, as we know from our experience of the many efforts made in regard to Northern Ireland. The truth is that for many Israelis the EU is not perceived as impartial in this matter. Some view the EU as being firmly in the Palestinian camp and it will not be easy to change that perception. However, it is necessary to do so if we are ever to adopt an honest broker role.
I have only visited Israel on one occasion and it was a joy to do so and to participate at a time when tensions were not quite so high. However, I found that what is said outside Israel, particularly at the United Nations, arouses concern, worry and terror among people on both sides of that wall. One of the difficulties in dealing with entrenched positions is that those involved are always likely to adopt a black and white attitude to others outside the conflict. They tend to use the phrase made notorious by President Bush — "Either you are with us or against us."
Impartiality is too often seen by the contenders in any conflict as invariably coming down against their side of the argument. We hear this all the time. When anything is said, people believe the worst. They tend not to listen and not to be open to listening to someone who says there is wrong on both sides. We can try to avoid this dead end by lifting our eyes to the long term and trying to encourage both sides to the conflict to do the same. Instead of reacting to the latest atrocity — it seems that atrocities occur almost every day — we should focus on the long-term goals and visions in which both sides accept they must live peacefully together and must find a way to do that.
As in any conflict, there will always be those who refuse to accept such a goal, those who cannot see beyond the world of conflict and whose only vision of the future is that one side will be victorious and the other vanquished. In Israel and Palestine, however, the majority of people still wish for a reasonable end to this conflict. If, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a strong position in the coming months, the EU could play some role in making that happen for those people, we will have done lasting good for the world as a whole, not just for those in that part of the world. I encourage the Minister to take the steps outlined during the debate on Senator Norris's motion, which he has shown himself willing to take.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, to the House. We were fortunate to have both the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State in the House during the debate and both are mentioned in the motion, which is to their credit and seldom seen.
This issue concerns two peoples rather than two countries, most of whom want peace with justice but some of whom do not want peace at all. We must deal with extremists who do not want peace just as we dealt with such extremists in this country, and there is a lesson in that regard for this conflict also. However, we must also deal with the middle ground and ask such people to exercise moral pressure on the extremists on both sides.
There is a seemingly intractable problem. Israel is a state founded on religion, a Jewish state. I have spoken to Jewish Israeli people and found that they believe they are under siege, surrounded by enemies, out-voted on most issues by a large number of Muslim states at a UN they do not trust, attacked by terrorists and suicide bombers who indiscriminately blow up Jewish men, women and children and besieged by terrorist groups whose only ambition is the complete destruction of the state of Israel, all of which points are true. Many also believe that one of the most appropriate forms of reparation would be the removal of terrorist organisations from the land of Israel and the acceptance of Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea and Samaria. It is a stark viewpoint if one considers what is being done, and perhaps helps us to understand why Israel responds so vehemently against what it sees as attacks.
On the other side is a dispossessed people, whose lands have been taken and who are harassed on a daily basis. I have visited what I will call the Holy Land rather than Israel or Palestine, although God knows it is far from holy. I have spoken to Jews, Muslims and Christians there and have seen something of what has happened. For example, I have spoken to Palestinians near Jericho who one day received a knock on the door. Outside were tanks, bulldozers and armed men who told them that the land was given to them by God, a land flowing with milk and honey, and that they were taking it back. They gave the people perhaps 20 minutes to leave, taking only a few souvenirs and documents, and then razed the house to the ground and took the land. This happened not to interlopers but to people whose ancestors had been living there for 300 years. Their land was taken and given to settlers. This is the same as if one was sitting at home in Dublin, a fellow knocked at the door, with tanks outside, and said, "I am from the Tuatha de Danann. We were here 3,000 years ago. This is ours — get out."
These people have been living in abject poverty for the past 50 years. There is no doubt that the Palestinians, both Muslims and Christians, are oppressed. It is not permitted to build a Christian church anywhere in Israel. These people are not exactly tolerant. Israel has a huge army, the third largest air force and nuclear weapons. The saddest aspect is that the last symbol of Jewish resistance to the Roman occupation was at Massada outside Jerusalem. Nowadays when they bring in their elite regiments, they have a torch light ceremony, which is the nearest thing to a Nazi ceremony one could see. I do not think they realise what they are doing.
We could talk all night about the atrocities on either side, which will not get us anywhere. What we must do is help the Palestinians in a humanitarian way. We must try to isolate the terrorists and persuade the Israelis to ease the plight of the oppressed and stop the disproportionate response. The Minister referred to the wall. This is a horrific wall which is not a great omen of peace. It is a tinderbox waiting to be lit. The Palestinians appear to be abandoned by the Arabs. They get no help. Many of the Arab states were created by the stroke of a pen and supported by the US, the Saudis, Kuwait and so on. Even though these countries are governed by royal families, they are dictatorships. Thousands of people live off the land and there is no democracy. However, there is always hope. There have been intractable problems. Someone referred to the Berlin Wall and there is the example of Northern Ireland.
As the Minister, Deputy Cowen, said, Israelis need not live in a fortress and Palestinians need not live in hopelessness and indignity. However, they need to take a risk. As members of the European Union, and having gone through a similar situation ourselves, we might be in a position to offer help and ask these people to take a risk. Mr. Sharon is coming over here and there are visits to Mr. Arafat and so on. These people should sit down and talk because there is always a middle ground. There is always a way to achieve peace, although one may not see it at the time. It takes a lot of effort, endeavour, hope and trust. Trust is only built a little at a time, but by taking a risk the prize is great. I do not think we should ever back away from it. I encourage the Minister to take a risk and I commend the motion to the House.
I thank Senator Norris for tabling the motion which I support. I thank him for his account of his visit to the occupied territories. I welcome the two Ministers and thank the Minister, Deputy Cowen, for his informative account of the initiatives he has taken in the last few months, which I welcome. I welcome in particular the fact that he met with Prime Minister Sharon and President Arafat. I also welcome the fact that the Irish Government tried to sponsor a motion on anti-Semitism at the UN, with which there were difficulties. It was well intentioned and the right thing to do. There is an issue regarding anti-Semitism — I am not referring to anyone here — when associating Israelis or Jewish people in general with the acts of a particular Israeli Government, which should be guarded against. A small minority of people take this attitude, which was behind acts such as the recent bombing of the synagogue in Turkey.
I am a supporter of Israel and Palestine. I would like to see as soon as possible two states, Palestinian and Israeli, which are both secure and economically and socially viable. As someone who has always supported Israel, when I listen to Senator Norris and read in the media what is happening in the occupied territories, I feel ashamed of the actions of the current Israeli Government. The Irish Government should do what it can in the next few months, in conjunction with the international community, to put pressure on the Israeli Government to reverse its policy, halt construction of the wall and remove it.
Senator Ryan referred to the Israelis hearing what people in Ireland think. My understanding from polls carried out in Israel is that the majority of Israelis want peace. Approximately 31% of people supported the Geneva Accord, 20% were undecided and 38% were against it. I understand that the majority of Israelis polled supported the road map and support Prime Minister Sharon's latest proposals. I think at this stage more blame attaches to the Israeli Government than to the Palestinians. There is no doubt the Palestinians are the weaker side who effectively have been brought to heel by the Israeli Government. However, there is blame on both sides. I agree with Senator Hayes and Senator Quinn that people must move beyond the blame stage. While there is no peace, more people will die and both sides will have blood on their hands.
I welcome the fact that the Palestinian Delegate General to Ireland, Dr. Ali Halimeh, is here today. President Arafat has been involved in many historic attempts at achieving peace over the years, but he must now allow others to come forward and play an uninhibited role in any peace process that evolves. I do not have all the information but, as an outside observer, I do not feel he played that role in regard to Mr. Abbas, which he and the Palestinian Authority should consider.
I am sceptical about Prime Minister Sharon's latest proposals, as are many Israelis, because of his past behaviour. It indicates that perhaps there is a shift in thought which, as Senator Hayes said, is welcome. It would be wrong for him to do something like this unilaterally. Any kind of movement must be on the basis of a negotiated peaceful settlement between the two sides. Both sides must show good faith and make concessions. There is that willingness on the part of the Palestinian Authority and among many Israeli representatives. The Geneva Accord shows how things can be done. I am not saying it is how matters will work out eventually. We must be critical of actions on both sides which cause damage. We should try to play a positive role in working with both sides. This is the approach the Government has been taking, which I welcome.
I wish to share my time with Senator O'Rourke. Like other speakers, I commend Senator Norris for the manner in which he keeps this issue at the top of the agenda and thank him for his excellent contribution.
It has been outlined to the House just exactly how high up on the agenda of the Government, in its Presidency of the European Union, and the European Union is the issue of the trouble in the Middle East. The Minister conveyed this in a very eloquent way.
Last May, I had the opportunity and wonderful privilege of chairing a debate in the Merrion Hotel in Dublin. On the platform with me that night were His Excellency, Daniel Megiddo, the Israeli ambassador, Dr. Ali Halimeh, the Palestinian Delegate General to Ireland, who I am delighted to see is present this evening, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, who was representing the Government. The Minster of State gave a very lengthy contribution, similar to a position paper, on where the Irish Government stood on the conflict in the Middle East. I was heartened by the frankness of the debate that took place that night. The debate lasted for almost four hours and it was incredible to obtain insight from people on both sides in the conflict who were personally affected by it. What came across so clearly to me was the huge desire for peace, almost at any cost. Those affected need peace so badly.
Also in the audience that night were people representing——
It is not appropriate to make reference to members of the audience at that function.
In that case, I will just say that there were people from Northern Ireland. This is very appropriate to what I want to say.
It is not fair to name people in the audience.
They spoke about their experience in the Northern Ireland conflict and stated how people would go nowhere without trust and dialogue. They stressed how important it is to keep the dialogue going at a time when one thinks it is going nowhere and one has nothing else to lose.
Previous speakers mentioned the wall and the violation of the rights of those who live in the West Bank. It is clear that the wall is no substitute for the process of dialogue. Only dialogue will lead to peace and perhaps a final settlement, for which we all hope. Equally, it is wrong that those in the West Bank should be subjected to the encirclement of their homes, villages and places of work. It is important that, at a time when we are aware of the Israeli-controlled area of the West Bank and Gaza, we bear in mind that in ten or 12 years time, a minority will be ruling a majority. This, by its very nature, will be utterly disastrous if no proper plan is in place.
I am glad the Government will continue to keep an eye on this issue and that the Minister of State is planning a visit to the area in the very near future. The only way forward has to be through dialogue. The only plan on the table and the only show in town is the road map.
Everybody should recognise the historic rights on both sides. The Minister of State should ask the European Union to foster and encourage people going forward in order that they will realise their best interest lies in making peace. Only through a process of dialogue may we hope that people can, in the words of Colin Powell, "replace old hatreds with new hopes" and build a future with a real peace dividend for all succeeding generations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Like others, I commend Senator Norris and his Independent companions. Senator Norris, fresh from his visit with Christian Aid, put down this motion, which was so explicit and inclusive that we were all very pleased to debate it. I thank the Minister and Minister of State for gracing us with their presence. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, is a regular attendee. It was very good to see the Minister here also. I wrote to him and the Taoiseach before Christmas asking them to come to the House early in the new term. Both have now responded, about which I am pleased.
This debate is very important and one in which this House is particularly well versed. The House provides a good environment for such debate because we are able to speak naturally, easily and intimately in a small but very decorative and historic Chamber. Speaking of what is happening in other countries and of what is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians in comfortable Dublin, as one might say, brings one up very sharply.
I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, for including the reference to my late brother, Brian Lenihan, and to my mother who had on the wall of her sitting-room a framed copy of the original Bahrain declaration. My brother gave it to my mother and she was proud to have it in her house and always very pleased with it. I was teaching in an all-girls' secondary school in Athlone at the time — it was 1980, at which time I was not a Member of either House — and there was in that school a teacher whose husband was stationed in the Army somewhere in that region. She berated me in the staffroom for the danger her husband was being put in by my brother, Mr. Charles Haughey and everybody else she could think of. This stuck very clearly in my mind.
I was invited to the Jewish Holocaust ceremony in City Hall and was glad to attend on a Sunday night. It was most moving. When coming home that night, I could not get out of my head how people who suffered so horrifically and needlessly because of their race, the colour of their eyes, hair and whatever else cannot see the considerable suffering that now exists. It really pierced me that people who had lived through such a traumatic, dangerous and humiliating time now seemed to be blind to the very humiliation and dependency they were bringing about in the lives of so many in Palestine. When I wrote to thank the convenor of the meeting for my being invited, I hinted there was so much suffering and yet no appreciation of the great suffering of others today.
As Senator Tuffy said, of the two countries Palestine is the dependant. It is worked upon and I wonder how its economy functions and how people live and eat. Ireland, given its Presidency, is now very suited to bringing its past passions and struggles to bear on what is now an ongoing, terrible, ignominious struggle between two fine sets of people. I hope and pray that the wisdom the Government can bring to this matter will be absorbed and put to good use.
Three or four Senators are offering with only 12 minutes remaining.
I would like to share two minutes of my time with Senator Henry.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We started about five or six minutes late.
I am allowing for that and including it in the 12 minutes.
To reiterate what previous speakers have said, it is crucially important that we recognise the effort, diplomatic and otherwise, Senator Norris has put into this motion. The motion, which is to become a resolution, praises the Government for its balanced policy. I have no difficulty in supporting it. I have always felt proud of the foreign policy position of successive Governments on the Middle East. The Minister of State has been part of this for a long time wearing various hats, and this is crucially important.
It is important to begin by reminding ourselves of the Holocaust and all that went with it. We have discussed it many times. Like the Leader of the House, I have also attended very moving memorial services to remember what was done to Jews, gays, gypsies and others in the Holocaust.
I speak as an unashamed long-time constant supporter of the Palestinian effort for recognition for a homeland. What is happening is obvious to the rest of the world. It will never be resolved by guns. Nevertheless, we cannot find a way of stopping it. It is a failure of politics and I am not sure how we can move on. It is not surprising that people forget. That is why it is important to remember the Holocaust. One of the great lessons of history, generation after generation, century after century, is that today's oppressed become tomorrow's oppressors. That has been the case with every single group in history. As soon as they find their way out, the circle of oppression comes into being.
There have been important moments in the Middle East. One of those was when Israel reluctantly accepted that there would be a Palestinian state. There was a great moment when President Arafat recognised that there would always be an Israeli state and said so publicly. Another important moment was recorded tonight by Senator Norris when he read the communication from President Arafat to the effect that he was not a supporter of suicide bombings and that they worsened the situation.
With the beginning of the first intifada conditions have gone steadily downhill. I remember feeling at that stage, despite all that was happening, that matters would only get worse. Time has rolled on and matters have got worse. The building of the wall is the final gesture of frustration, the final symbol of the failure of politics to solve this, as it is also the failure of force to solve it. It means that the sides must stand back from what is happening at present, which is absolutely unbearable to the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people as well should come firmly behind the points made by President Arafat. That could be a starting point and I hope that during our Presidency we can move things forward.
We should also unashamedly condemn Cement Roadstone Holdings for its involvement in the building of this wall. It is absolutely appalling. We should all be a part of that condemnation. I wish to share my remaining time with Senator Henry.
I thank Senator O'Toole for sharing his time. I too share his horror at Cement Roadstone Holdings.
The past is very important. However, the present is also important because it will be the past of the future. We have Senator Norris to thank for constantly bringing this issue before our eyes. All of us praise the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and the Minister, Deputy Cowen, for what they do and for what those before them have done in this area.
Whenever I see a situation where there are two different populations one of the first things I try to do as a doctor is look at the health figures for the area. Earlier this evening Senator Norris spoke about the disgusting conditions in which many Palestinians have to live. Their poverty and lack of access to anything is borne out by the United Nations State of World Population figures. In Israel the infant mortality rate is six per 1,000, much the same as in the developed world; in Palestine it is four times as great. Life expectancy in Israel is 71 for a man and 81 for a woman. Eighty-one years would be considered very good in this part of the world — it is less here. For Palestinians it is 70 for a man and 74 for a woman. All the statistics indicate that the Palestinians are very much deprived. There is one statistic which must be examined very carefully. That is the births per 1,000 women. For Israel the rate is 17 and for the occupied Palestinian territories it is five times as much. That means that on one side of that wall there are people who are being deprived, who number five times as many as on the other side where people have so much more.
The EU effort within the Palestinian occupied territories was mentioned and it was stated that the effort should be renewed. It should, but every effort is frequently destroyed. It seems that as soon as something is built, it is knocked down and must be rebuilt. I deplore the suicide bombers and the gruesome videos that are sent out, particularly those of women. It is a whole new development where women with children say they are going to kill themselves, knowing they will be killing other children. When that happens many houses around where these people lived are knocked down too. Nobody knows better than people here that one must try to bring people in out of the cold. I hope that in the deliberations which are taking place, in which Senator Norris and many other Senators, and particularly the former Senator Lanigan, have played an important part, the experience we have had in this country will be put to good use.
I welcome Dr. Ali Halimeh, the Delegate General of the Palestinian people.
The Senator should speak to the motion.
He is welcome. I commend Senator Norris on tabling this motion which is agreed by all parties in the House. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and the Minister, Deputy Cowen, both of whom have played a very important role in relation to the future of Palestine and the difficulties of that region. I commend the Government for its excellent contribution this evening which outlines exactly how matters stand at present. I am particularly pleased that we as a Government have sent our own national statement to the International Court of Justice to ensure that we are represented. As President of the European Union it is vitally important that we play a role at this stage. It is very much in line with Fianna Fáil policy as enunciated by the former Tánaiste, the late Brian Lenihan, who, as Minister in 1980, stated the position regarding the future of Palestine and the need for a state. It was a very courageous statement at the time and represented a very futuristic approach to this area. Palestine has great friends here in the Oireachtas. Our mission is to ensure the self-determination of the Palestinian state and also the existence of Israel as a state, but not on the basis of current conduct or, particularly, the new Berlin wall.
The statement by the Prime Minister of Israel is rather remarkable in that it proposes the removal of the settlements in the Gaza Strip. I hope we can believe these statements and that the President of the European Union will work in that regard. I find the statement remarkable. It is a conversion on the road to Damascus. Some of the settlers will now call him Judas. It is very difficult to believe that the same Prime Minister who is erecting new barriers and walls to divide the people of Israel and Palestine and remove Palestinians from their rightful occupation of thousands of hectares of land is making this statement. President Arafat will have some reservations in this regard, but the statement has been made that all Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip will be dismantled. The order has been given to plan for the evacuation of 17 settlements and the assumption is that in future there will be no Jews in Gaza. If this is true it is certainly a move towards negotiations on the road map which was put forward by the Americans and supported by the European Union. In that regard it is unusual for an independent parliament to have a support group called Friends of Palestine and I thank those who participated. A high percentage of Deputies and Senators have participated in support of an independent Palestinian state. That is quite remarkable for an independent Parliament. I wish that group every success as convenor. We will continue to work with the ambassador here in Ireland in support of Palestine and a just and long-term settlement of this particular issue, which has so much potential to cause further world conflict. The situation in Palestine calls for justice. It demands the people of the world should note that Palestine is entitled to its existence, its own government and to be a free democratic state. We support that fully.
I would like to thank the Minister and the Minister of State and all my colleagues who took part in what was a very important debate. I have not changed my position. I continue to state where I stand, fully in support of the human rights of ordinary people on both sides. When the state of Israel violates those human rights I will speak out and hope I will be heard. With regard to the business of settlements and Mr. Sharon, we must be very careful. I travelled down there with a very reputable Jewish scholar who has written extensively on this subject and he predicted Sharon's actions two weeks ago saying: "This is exactly what Sharon will do. It is a bargaining ploy. Be careful."
Every settlement is illegal under the United Nations. Why should one, two, three or four be allowed? The position is unsustainable and half the time in these so-called settlements there is nobody, just empty buildings. The other matter is the point raised by Senator Henry — the demographics. Sharon knows perfectly well there are elements within the Palestinian side, for example, who will now say: "Let us give up. Surrender is the best form of attack. Let us say we cannot have a state; it does not work. We will all go in with Israel." Then Israel is overwhelmed because it is faced with the problem of whether it becomes totally dictatorial or whether Israelis recognise the Palestinians and become a minority in their own Jewish state. That is the problem Sharon faces, so we must be careful with him because of the cosmetic arrangements he makes.
We have a powerful weapon in the European Union, the association agreement with Israel, which is a trade consensus. That is where it bites and that is where it will hurt. There are human rights protocols attached and I believe there is a strong case for activating them. With regard to the suicide bombings I am not going to go over that. I have said what I had to say apart from this: I know when that woman, a beautiful young lawyer, killed herself, awful as that deed was it is not enough just to condemn it. One has to ask why these abnormal events happen. How is it that a young woman with a law degree and her life in front of her commits such an act? We must ask why, not to excuse it, but to delve into the reasons. When one asks this question, one discovers that her brother and her cousin were shot in front of her and her father, when dying of cancer, was refused palliative treatment. He was stopped all the time at the gate. She watched him die in agony. I am not excusing her act, but putting it into context.
As a former academic, I believe there should be a comparative review of sentencing policy in the jurisdiction of Israel as between Jewish and Arab citizens. There is a discrepancy and it is a reproach to the Israeli bar council that it has done nothing about. I would like to return to the business of the wall. Some 220,000 people are affected directly, representing a third of the population of Palestine. On visiting this region, both sides have a tendency to ask what lessons we can show them from our experience in Northern Ireland. The parallel is salutary — four hundred years after the plantation of Ulster, we are still dealing with its malignant consequences. At least now we have learned and there is progress. One reason for this is the doctrine of parity of esteem, which has not been accepted by the contending parties, especially the Israelis, whose government appears to have declared war, not on a state, but on its people and whose proud boast of having made the desert bloom has now been replaced in the territories by the horrible reality of turning orchards and olive groves back into desert.
If one takes the parallel with the North seriously and tries to imagine the Israeli-Palestinian situation and its conditions being re-enacted north of the Border, this would involve the bombing of the Divis Flats by F-16 aircraft every time a machine gun poked out of a window, the surrounding of Dundalk by a concrete noose and its isolation from the rest of the Republic, with all the attendant restrictions on its population and the demolition of half of west Belfast because of supposed IRA contact. It would be much better if, instead of attempting to degrade the Palestinian population further, the Israeli Government made every attempt to bring them up to the level of infrastructure, income and employment that used to be enjoyed before the intifada in the state of Israel.
Mr. Sharon frequently says the problem with the process is there is no partner. This tends to refer to Mr. Arafat. However, the absence of partnership could equally be laid at his door. On any occasion when there was a possibility of peace breaking out, Mr. Sharon was careful to sabotage it by a target assassination which frequently went wrong and caused multiple civilian casualties. After the recent suicide bombing, which was widely and rightly condemned, an Israeli Government spokesman, Mr. Gissin said: "The rest of the world should now sit back and let us do as we need to do to defend ourselves."
I sincerely hope this advice is not heeded and is smartly rejected. There could be no better recipe for disaster. Let us recall what happened when Mr. Sharon infamously stood back and let the Christian militia in to butcher the unfortunate Palestinians in Sabra and Chatila. It is wise, also, to be careful of repeated and quite dishonest calls made by Mr. Sharon on the Palestinian Authority to disarm Hamas. Let us recall that Hamas was established with the assistance of covert Israeli funding as an early means of destabilising the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. In so doing, they sowed dragons teeth. Is it reasonable to expect a police force whose police stations have been repeatedly bombed and whose personnel are forbidden by the Israeli occupiers to carry weapons or even wear uniforms in directing traffic to confront armed radical elements? As I said on RTE recently, it is like expecting them to go out in their underpants and peg snowballs at heavily armed fanatics.
If there is to be a resolution of this terrible conflict in the medium term, positive steps, however small, as the Minister of State said, need to be initiated now. During the week, I attended a talk by the Cypriot Foreign Minister in the Institute of European Affairs. Speaking on the Cyprus problem, he said that in order to make progress both sides must cut their losses, turn the page and develop a new vocabulary. This is the best advice I could give to both sides in the continuing tragic dispute in Palestine-Israel.
Finally, I thank Christian Aid for making this trip possible and to say that if I learned anything it is the necessity for people of conscience, be they Israeli, Palestinian, Arab or Irish to travel through these hot spots and bear witness to what is happening so that the worst excesses may be stopped. I also ask in particular that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, keep this matter close to the top of the agenda during the Irish Presidency and make a point of visiting not just Jerusalem but also Ramallah, the terrible trajectory of the wall and the squalid militarised conditions that now exist in the West Bank and Gaza.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.