Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 28 September 2023
11. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will set out the matters discussed and the responses received in his discussions with the President of the state of Palestine Mr. Mahmoud Abbas; if the issue of the recognition of the state of Palestine by Ireland was discussed; if he raised the issue of holding elections in Palestine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39899/23]
View answerWill the Tánaiste set out the issues discussed with the President of the state of Palestine, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas in his recent visit, and if the recognition of the state of Palestine was discussed? Was the issue the holding of elections in Palestine discussed?
I could give the Deputy the verbal version but in short, I met with the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah as part of my visit to the occupied Palestinian territory. During my meeting with the President, we discussed a number of issues including possible future elections in the occupied Palestinian territory, international recognition, our strong bilateral relations, the prospects for peace negotiations, and the two-state solution.
I underlined the importance for Ireland of the Palestinian National Authority holding national elections as it has been 17 years since the last national elections. I emphasised that it is a critical moment to do so in order to enhance the Palestinian National Authority’s credibility as the representative voice of the Palestinian people, notwithstanding the challenges and constraints in relation to the holding of elections in East Jerusalem. It is my strong view that there is need to give voice to Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, through the democratic process.
President Abbas and I also discussed the issue of recognition of the state of Palestine. I outlined Ireland’s consistent position on this issue and we discussed Ireland's efforts at European Union level to raise the profile of the Israeli-Palestinian issue and seek more effective collective European Union engagement in pressing for a political horizon and a path to negotiations.
During our discussions, President Abbas briefed me on talks earlier this year between Palestinian and Israeli delegations, including the Aqaba and Sharm-el-Sheik negotiations, aimed at de-escalating tensions. I expressed my support for these talks and the importance of maintaining communications lines. We also discussed prospects for intra-Palestinian reconciliation with engagement on this issue ongoing and led by Egypt.
What response did the Tánaiste get from President Abbas on the election issue and on the holding of elections in Palestine?
One of the most disturbing things I have seen in recent times was the speech of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United Nations, in which address he held up his view of the future that was a map of the Middle East. He said that with the new negotiations with Saudi Arabia, the extension of the so-called Abraham Accords, that this would be the look of the new Middle East. There was no state of Palestine. There was no notion that the Palestinian people could actually have their own state. They were simply obliterated from his vision of the future. In that context is it really worthwhile trying to pursue the notion of a two-state solution if the current Israeli regime is so dead against it? Can we take a stand by recognising the state of Palestine?
President Abbas's response was that because the Israeli Government refuses to facilitate the holding of elections in East Jerusalem - which is a critical issue for the Palestinian National Authority - they therefore cannot proceed with elections. He referenced the current level of aggression within the occupied territories. Fundamentally it rests on East Jerusalem being enabled to be part of any electoral process.
We believe there is a need to push because 17 years is a long time without elections. There is a view that sentiment has changed within the Palestinian occupied territories. There is much concern around the younger generations of Palestinians not being able, through the ballot box, to articulate their frustrations, their views and their perspectives on where they are now. We must continue to engage with all partners on this, including the Palestinian National Authority.
The current composition of the Israeli Government is deeply worrying.
Earlier I referred to religious fundamentalism as now being a part of the extension of policy, the manifestation of that being very aggressive settler expansion which is almost on biblical terms, justifications, etc. It is all very dangerous, highly violent and causing unacceptable escalation.
Israel, in all our discussions, reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution, but I do not disagree with the Deputy's basic tenet. The evidence of that is thin on the ground.
First, I strongly agree with the Tánaiste that there needs to be a new testing of the democratic will of the Palestinian people and I hope it can be facilitated. Fear of an election is not a trait we can accept anywhere in the world.
The more fundamental point is if the Israelis, in the Tánaiste's discussions with the most senior members, were of the view that they still support a two-state solution, that is not what they are saying internationally. That is not what is happening on the ground. They are every day making the creation of a state of Palestine more impossible with increasing settlements and dislocation of Palestinian people from their traditional lands. I would ask whether it is a sustainable policy for us and for the European Union and others to say a two-state solution is the way to achieve peace if that solution is a fiction now that it is being made impossible by the actions of the State of Israel. I would also ask whether we need to have a different approach by recognising the state of Palestine ourselves now and seek international support for that before it is too late and a viable state of Palestine is unachievable.
We have discussed with other European member states the prospect of recognising a Palestinian state. There is an argument for endeavouring to get critical mass to have impact. There is also a timing issue. There is a judgment call in terms of whether it advances the situation in respect of the rights and quality of life of Palestinians in real terms.
Watching as it makes it impossible is equally futile.
It is an issue we keep under constant review at Government level. I fully understand where the Deputy is coming from in respect of the question and the manner in which he has tabled it.
Coming back from the visit, there is deep concern across the region now as to how this situation is developing in a negative trajectory. It is very worrying and quite depressing in respect of the humanitarian consequences.
The scenario the Deputy outlined has implications as well. If you were to abandon, and if Israel were to abandon, a two-state solution, that has implications too. I put this to the Israelis. You cannot expel millions of Palestinians, and since Oslo, the Palestinian population has increased significantly also. There needs to be a logical resolution of this. I know every situation is different but there are interesting strands in the peace process in Ireland that could be applied in terms of confidence-building measures, etc. The Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh meetings were brokered by Jordan and they were not fulfilled even though Israeli interlocutors signed off on those agreements. They were not fulfilled by the Israeli Government or, indeed, followed through.
On the extension of the Abraham Accords and the Saudi Arabian-Israeli track, that is being discussed significantly with the United States' involvement. As to whether there is a loop back or a connection into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains to be seen. We would have to see fairly concrete evidence of that and that it might have a meaningful impact.
