Gary Gannon
Question:4. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he used the phrase "apartheid" in any formal engagement during his recent visit to Israel. [41913/23]
View answerThursday, 28 September 2023
Questions (4)
Oral answers (8 contributions)
I also want to ask the Tánaiste about his recent visit to Israel and Palestine. In particular I want to ask him if he used the phrase "apartheid" in any formal engagement during that recent visit.
I thank the Deputy for his question. Policies and actions that negatively impact upon the rights of the Palestinian people were a central focus of all my exchanges throughout my visit to Israel and to the occupied Palestinian territory.
In Israel, I had a full and frank discussion with President Netanyahu, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Eli Cohen, and the Minister of Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer. I underlined our long-standing position that Israel cease illegal settlement construction and expansion, as well as our alarm at the accelerating rate of settler violence, which, alongside evictions and demolitions, are making the lives of Palestinian communities intolerable.
The Israeli Government is fully aware of our deep disagreement with its policies and practices in relation to the Palestinian people and views us as among the most critical of EU partners. I consistently emphasised to all Israeli interlocutors that our position is fully based on internationally agreed parameters and respect for international law, and is shared by a large majority of UN member states.
I also met with several organisations that are seeking to find a way to change the reality on the ground, which is our Government’s priority. I travelled to Lod in Israel, which saw severe intercommunal violence in May 2021, to visit a project funded by my Department delivering a programme for anti-racism instruction in Arab and Jewish high schools.
In Ramallah, I met with representatives of civil society organisations working in the area of human rights and accountability. I was also briefed by the West Bank Protection Consortium on the deteriorating situation in area C and East Jerusalem, including the worrying trends of settler violence, settlement expansion and demolitions of Palestinian and donor-funded property. I also had the opportunity to meet with a Bedouin Palestinian family at risk of displacement.
I am fully aware of the reports by civil society organisations such as Amnesty International which characterise the situation as one of apartheid. I also took careful note of the comments and reflections shared by The Elders following their visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory in June of this year. I had the opportunity during UN high-level week to exchange views with former President Mary Robinson, who led the June visit, on her views on the situation. Such contributions are increasing debate and awareness, including within Israeli society, of the discriminatory impact the policies and actions of its Government are having on the lives of ordinary Palestinian people.
The Government does not use the term "apartheid". Our focus is on identifying meaningful, impactful and substantive ways to change the reality on the ground in what is a deeply complex environment and multifaceted conflict.
I thank the Tánaiste for his contribution. I will begin by saying that I do not doubt for a second his care and passion for the issue and I do not believe anybody has a monopoly on such emotions in this Chamber. The term "apartheid" is not just a term but has meaning in international law which has been referred to most particularly in the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
How does it benefit the people of Palestine and the people in Gaza and in any of the refugee camps if we do not use the term and if we do not recognise that what they experience is a form of apartheid? During the Tánaiste's recent visit to the Middle East did he witness the denial of their fundamental rights to millions of Palestinians solely because they are Palestinian and not Israeli? Did he witness this with his own eyes? Did he witness a system of domination and suppression forced upon one group of people over another? Did he witness state-sanctioned racial discrimination of one group over another? If so, what does anybody gain by not calling this for what it is, which is a system of apartheid? I fully appreciate the Government's position. I do not agree with it but I certainly do not agree with not calling something for what it is.
I appreciate where the Deputy is coming from. We are aware that the issue of apartheid has been raised in a number of reports, of which we have taken very careful note, from United Nations rapporteurs and civil society organisations. We support civil society organisations through vital funding despite the fact that some of them are designated as terrorist organisations by the Israeli Government, which is wrong in our view. We have funded civil society organisations in Israel and in the occupied territories. This is necessary in both jurisdictions to ensure freedom of operation for civil society organisations that call out injustices, discrimination, harassment and unacceptable practices on all sides. It is extremely important that we continue to affirm and support civil society organisations.
I referenced complexity. What is clear in terms of the Israeli perspective is the dominance of security in political discourse and electoral considerations. In our view, having had our own experiences of peace processes, having such a one-dimensional and singular approach to issues will never resolve a conflict of this kind where identity, sovereignty and a right to one's state are at the centre. The issue of terror and security from an Israeli perspective dominates all of their responses, which is creating a very unacceptable situation in respect of the treatment of Palestinians more generally.
We have had a number of exchanges on this issue. In a recent engagement the Tánaiste highlighted his predecessors in Fianna Fáil who took what I would argue was the brave position of being the first to call for the Palestinians' right to a homeland. In order to highlight where we have been brave in the past, and where some of the Tánaiste's predecessors were brave in the past, does the Tánaiste not think there is also a time for us to stand up unilaterally and say if the other 26 EU countries will not act in concert then we might need to go beyond it? I call for recognition of what is happening as apartheid. I would go further with regard to recognition of the Palestinian people. When will we act and demonstrate a bit of courage and call it for what it is?
Language is fairly straightforward.
Language is important.
I take Deputy Gannon's earlier point that apartheid is more than language. Using phrases such as "call it for what it is" is fairly straightforward to do. We could remove ourselves from the entire engagement and just call it what we think it is. Would it advance the situation? That is the call. We have continually remained engaged and that engagement is important. With regard to the work that UNRWA does in Gaza, the occupied territories and refugee camps in Jordan and elsewhere, Ireland stands strongly to support that which supports Palestinians in very difficult situations.
Even though some member states might not agree with Ireland's position, coming from where we are coming from they respect us as a country in terms of our perspective on human rights and compliance with international law. This carries some weight in the broader area of policies on a swathe of issues that arise in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a balance and a judgment call in terms of the particular track that one wants to devise as a Government in terms of how we engage on the issue. We are engaging on the issue with all parties involved with a view to seeing whether we can get this on a proper track with others towards a two-state solution. We are not giving up on a two-state solution. This is one of the outcomes of the visit. An issue discussed with many interlocutors was the viability of a two-state solution. We have not given up on that.