Written Answers. - Visa Applications.
John Moloney
Ceist:
110
Mr. Moloney
asked the
Minister for Foreign Affairs
the representations, if any, which he has made to the Israeli authorities in connection with the proposed visit of the Pilgrim House community to Israel; and the response of the Israeli authorities to those representations.
[6245/00]
The Pilgrim House Community applied in July 1999 to the Israeli Embassy in Dublin for visas for an eight month stay in Israel. The community consists of a number of adult Irish nationals, an adult Colombian national and a number of children, six of whom are Romanian citizens. Irish and Colombian nationals do not require visas for stays in Israel of less than three months but Romanian nationals do require visas.
On 14 September the community was informed by the Israeli Embassy that their application had been refused and the following day the Irish ambassador in Israel wrote to the Israeli authorities asking that they reconsider the application. The ambassador in his letter pointed out that the Pilgrim House Foundation is a registered charity involved with the mentally handicapped and that they had sufficient funds to support their stay in Israel.
On 29 September the community told our ambassador in Israel that they were departing for Israel by road and that their hope was that by the time they arrived at Haifa in Israel the visa issue would have been resolved. They were advised to continue to press their case directly with the Israeli Embassy in Dublin. The community arrived in Haifa on 10 October without visas. They were refused entry and the Israeli authorities compelled them to return to the ship from which they had disembarked. The ambassador travelled to Haifa as soon as he heard of what had happened. Before doing so he contacted the Israeli authorities to say that he was extremely concerned about the manner in which the group had been treated by the immigration authorities at the port. On his arrival he asked the Israeli side to reduce their presence. He contacted the Israeli foreign ministry and emphasised strongly the manner in which the group was mistreated and manhandled. He asked the Israeli authorities to reconsider their decision and to permit the group to land.
The following day, 11 October, after the Israeli foreign ministry had informed the ambassador that the Israeli authorities, having reviewed the facts at their disposal, had decided that the group would have to leave Israel, my predecessor, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. David Andrews spoke in Luxembourg with the Israeli Foreign Minister. He asked Mr. Levy to intervene to resolve the situation as a matter of urgency. He told him that respected clerical figures had testified that the community were bona fide pilgrims and said that the matter could adversely affect relations between the two countries. Simultaneously, the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs called in the Israeli Chargé d'Affaires to convey the same message and to urge the authorities to grant entry. Later that day a member of Minister Levy's entourage claimed that the decision to refuse visas had been made on foot of information given to the Israelis by the Garda. The Israelis then informed the ambassador that their authorities viewed the arrival of the community without visas as a "provocative" step as they had been advised by the Israeli Embassy in Dublin not to travel to Israel without the necessary visas. The community departed Haifa later on the same ship on 11 October.
The group had been described in the Israeli newspapers as a doomsday cult, extreme sect, etc. and similar stories appeared in the Cypriot, Greek and Irish newspapers. It would appear that this misrepresentation of the community came from Israeli sources.
The community remained in Greece from 14 October until 8 November while efforts continued to have their application for visas reconsidered. Their movements were watched closely by the Greek police.
While the community was in Greece the ambassador in Tel Aviv wrote on several occasions to the Foreign ministry in this connection. He repeated that the community is a legally registered charity and that they are known as a very committed group of people. He raised the question of the complaints of police mistreatment in Haifa. On 19 October the Israelis again repeated the decision not to allow the group to enter Israel.
There was continuous contact between the Irish Embassy and the Israeli authorities during the month of November but without any fundamental change in the Israeli position. By early December the community had arrived in France and the Embassy again asked the Israeli auth orities to reconsider the question of entry to Israel, specifically to allow them spend Christmas there. The community now said they were prepared to go to Israel for less than 90 days. My predecessor, Deputy David Andrews, wrote to the Israeli ambassador in Dublin on 8 December last again asking the Israel authorities to reconsider. This was pursued the following day with a letter from the Irish ambassador to say the community hoped to arrive on 20 December and to depart on 18 March. A letter from an official of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform confirming that, on the basis of information supplied by the Garda authorities, the group in question had not come to notice here in relation to engaging in unlawful activities or as representing a threat to public order was passed on to the Israeli authorities.
On 16 December my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform wrote to the Israeli Ministers for the Interior and for Public Safety. This followed discussions between a representative of the group and an official of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform during which the representative accepted that the description of the group was an accurate one in an Irish context but they were concerned at the interpretation of this description by the Israeli authorities. In the letter my colleague acknowledged the Garda authorities had described the community as a radical Christian group but he explained that should not be seen as critical of their behaviour or lifestyle. In this connection he emphasised that they had not come to notice here in relation to unlawful activities nor as a threat to public order.
Following further meetings involving our ambassador to Israel and the Israeli ambassador to Ireland the Israeli authorities eventually informed us on 21 December that they had not changed their mind. In a letter of 28 December the Minister for Public Security in Israel, Ben Ami, said that upon receipt of Minister O'Donoghue's letter he requested a review of the matter. He said that for the time being the request could not be granted. Should the group apply for entry permits as tourists at a later stage the request would be given due consideration with a view to providing a solution. On 14 January Minister O'Donoghue wrote again to his counterpart reiterating what had been said in his previous letter.
On 20 January last my predecessor again wrote at length to the Israeli Foreign Minister. He said the community had been harshly and unjustly treated and that representations by the Irish Government appeared to be of no avail. He asked the Israeli Foreign Minister to use his best efforts to enable the admission of the community to Israel without further delay. Five days later my predecessor met with representatives of the community while on a visit to Strasbourg. These efforts produced a positive response when on 1 February the Department of Foreign Affairs was informed by the Israeli ambassador that the Mini ster for Public Security, Ben Ami, had withdrawn his objection to the visit. However, a number of conditions were set, for example, the visit could not take place until after 31 March, it should only last for 30 days and guarantees should be given about health insurance, etc.
Following further representations from the community about the conditions attached to the visit by the Israeli authorities I wrote, on 3 February last, to Foreign Minister Levy. I rejected the inference that they were a security risk and pointed out the practical difficulties for the community of having to wait until April. I asked that they be allowed to make a visit of at least eight weeks.
When I was informed that it would not be possible to accede to my request I asked our ambassador in Tel Aviv to make further direct approaches on my behalf to the Israeli side specifically on the date of arrival and on the duration of the visit. Following consultations there the ambassador reported that the Israeli authorities will not be amenable to any further representations and that they will hold firm to their decision of 1 February.
I can understand the wish of the community to visit Israel as soon as possible. However, the question of permission to enter Israel remains a matter for the Israeli authorities. It is evident that they have reconsidered the matter as a result of our many representations and have said they will grant permission to the group to visit after 31 March. There is, we understand, a possibility that they will grant an extension beyond the 30 days for the visit.
In the meanwhile I have asked our ambassador to continue to press the Israeli authorities for a response to the complaints of mistreatment made by the group when they originally landed at Haifa on 10 October.
