Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 27 February 2019
1. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of the meeting he held with EU and Arab Foreign Ministers to discuss the Middle East peace process; the progress made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9756/19]
View answerWill the Tánaiste provide an update on the meeting he held recently between EU and Arab Foreign Ministers to discuss the Middle East peace process? I would be grateful if he could give us as much detail as possible on what was achieved at the meeting.
A group of Arab and European Foreign Ministers met in Dublin on 18 and 19 February at my invitation for a discussion on the current state of the Middle East peace process. As well as the Palestinian Foreign Minister and me, Ministers from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Jordan, Spain and Sweden were present, as was the Secretary General of the Arab League. The participants were welcomed to Ireland by President Higgins and by the Taoiseach before the meeting. I had invited this group of Ministers based on my previous engagements with them on this issue in the past 18 months. Although there were a number of EU Ministers present, we did not, of course, represent the European Union as a whole. All of those present shared a vision for peace and believed in a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the two-state solution. In our view, that is essential to a successful new peace plan.
Ministers emphasised their support for a comprehensive Middle East peace process which met the legitimate rights and aspirations of both parties: the right of Palestinians to freedom and statehood and the right of Israelis to security and regional acceptance. We urged international mobilisation and serious and effective negotiations to create a political horizon so as to counter disillusionment and potential radicalisation. Participants reiterated their support for every credible effort to get such serious negotiations started.
As it was always envisaged that the meeting would be a private discussion, we did not produce a declaration or long public statement. This format allowed for the maximum openness and straight talking, which we certainly had. Therefore, I will not comment in detail on who said what. What I can say is the purpose of the meeting was to bring people together who had a shared interest in a peace plan which might emerge in the coming months landing successfully in terms of both content and approach.
The Minister said there were six European countries represented, as well as Jordan and Egypt. Can he tell us if representatives from Israel were invited and, if so, did they decline? Were there other invitees who either declined or did not turn up? Fianna Fáil shares the Government's interest in the Middle East peace process. It is a long-running conflict. A two-state solution which would deliver a fully sovereign state of Palestine independent of and coexisting with Israel is a goal we all want to achieve. It is a cause of concern for us all that, despite condemnation by Ireland, the European Union and many in the international community, Israel is continuing the settlement programme in the occupied territories. This is counterproductive and will work against any peace initiative. My party and I wholly condemn the anti-Semitic attacks and increase in anti-Semitic activity across Europe and elsewhere, of which recent events in France are examples. Were representatives from Israel invited to the meeting? Who else declined? Was there any consensus on the way forward? Does the Tánaiste accept that Israel is acting unilaterally in continuing to build settlements in the occupied territories? Does he also accept that it is in breach of international law?
I have been very clear many times that we think the expansion of settlements in occupied territory is in breach of international law. We believe it should not be happening, as it undermines the capacity to have a viable two-state solution and makes it more difficult to negotiate. It also undermines the context in which we can achieve a fair settlement and causes unnecessary tension. For many reasons, I have been vocal and critical of expanding settlements in the West Bank.
I join the Deputy in absolutely rejecting and criticising comments that may be linked with anti-Semitism, something against which we should all stand up. Given the past history of anti-Semitism in the European Union, it is something we need to guard against in the future and learn lessons from.
Everybody who was invited to the meeting came. The initiative arose from a conversation I had with the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Mr. al-Maliki, last June.
The Tánaiste will have another minute. I urge Deputies to keep to the times allocated.
When the Tánaiste makes his subsequent reply, he might tell us whether the Israelis were invited. In September 2018, when he announced that he was convening the meeting, he said Ireland would be forced to recognise the state of Palestine. Is it still his thinking that we will be forced to do so? Why do we not just go ahead and do it now? Is there anything going on in the background in respect of the long-promised US peace initiative which we are awaiting? Elections are due to be held in Israel in April.
Will the Tánaiste comment on correspondence which he and the Taoiseach received, as did my party leader and party Whip, from about ten members of the US Congress which is viewed by many as a veiled threat to Ireland and the Oireachtas in respect of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill?
It was led by Congressman Peter King. It effectively points out that we have a significant foreign direct investment base in this country, including Google, Facebook and Twitter. I am sure the Tánaiste has read the letter which could be interpreted as a slightly-----
Go raibh maith agat.
-----veiled threat towards Ireland-----
The Tánaiste to respond.
-----and our Houses of Parliament-----
The Tánaiste to respond.
-----in terms of what legislation we seek to discuss and enact. Does the Tánaiste propose giving a substantial response to the authors of this letter pointing out that we are independent and the Houses of the Oireachtas are independent, and that we are entitled to discuss-----
Members-----
-----and debate any legislation we see fit?
Before we go any further, may I point out that there are numerous questions? There might not be many Members in the House, but they will be coming in. Until such time as the Standing Orders decide that one minute becomes two minutes or a minute and a half, please try to assist me.
The Tánaiste has one minute.
I will do my best, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Regarding those who were invited, I have explained to those in Washington who were putting together a peace plan, to the Israeli ambassador and to an Israeli Minister who telephoned to discuss something else, why I did not think it would be helpful to have Israeli representatives at that meeting. We are trying to have a free and open debate, not an argument, and to get an understanding and a perspective of the Palestinian frustration at lack of progress. It has been a very difficult 18 months for the Middle East peace process, for Palestinians in particular. This was about a meeting of countries that want a viable solution for both Palestinians and Israelis, but, of course, there was a big focus on the Palestinian perspective as part of that discussion. There will be many forums in the future, as there has been, that will focus on the Israeli perspective which I think I also understand pretty well, having met many Israelis to discuss it on many occasions.
We have said that if there is no progress on a Middle East peace process, we would look at the issue of recognition again and we will. The commitment in the programme for Government is recognition-----
Tánaiste-----
-----of a Palestinian state-----
I am wasting my time and your time.
-----in the context of an overall solution.
If I am in the Chair, the Tánaiste and Members must at least observe the clock. If I call them short, all of them are very quick in observing the clock.
Particularly me.
I am not looking at you.
Why is he looking at Deputy Boyd Barrett?
From here on in this morning I am going to be extremely sharp.
What about correspondence from the congressman?
Sure listen, carry on. Are you going to carry on?
Okay, carry on.
I call on Deputy Crowe to pose Question No. 2. Members need to be fair to themselves and to the House.
I agree with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
If the Deputy agrees, then everybody should.
