JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 Feb 2008

Middle East Peace Process: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri, Delegate General of the Palestinian General Delegation and His Excellency, Zion Evrony, Israeli ambassador to Ireland. The EU's policy in the Middle East has been discussed on a number of occasions by the committee in the past few weeks, for obvious reasons. As witnesses will know, the committee has a particular responsibility regarding that part of the EU's brief. The committee is particularly interested in the funding that the EU is providing for peace and reconciliation in the region. It is also concerned about the impasse that seems to exist in the region and about what appears to be a powder keg that has been condensed for the past number of months, which seems unlikely to lead to a positive outcome.

The issue of the isolation of the Palestinians has been raised previously, as has the fact that there appears to be a delay in moving the peace process forward to any tangible degree, thus lessening the likelihood of achieving a lasting result. Whatever about the lasting result, members have expressed the view that, at least in the interim, circumstances must prevail that allow for the development of good relations between the two communities.

I call on the ambassador to speak first, followed by Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri, after which members of the committee will respond to their submissions.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

I thank the committee for inviting me to clarify our position on the peace process since Annapolis. I am glad to be sitting here with my Palestinian colleague, Dr. Ajjuri. This may be the first time such a joint experience has taken place in this Parliament. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the friendly and warm welcome I have received since my arrival in Ireland. I have discovered many cultural, historic and economic similarities between Israel and Ireland. If we could just share some of Ireland's rain, it would be good.

Chairman

Israel can have that anytime it wishes.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

If we get the approval of farmers beforehand, they would not object.

I will make some brief remarks because of the late hour and I will be glad to answer members' questions. I am trying to be brief to allow time for a dialogue. I recall the experience of our late Irish-born President, Chaim Herzog, when he was invited to speak at Kibbutz, a communal settlement in northern Israel. He asked the organiser how much time he had, to which the organiser told him that he could speak for as long as he wanted, but that people would be leaving at 9 o'clock.

I will start with a general observation about the current status of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations since Annapolis and outline the principles of Israel's policy and the challenges we face. We are in the middle of two different intertwined processes. One is positive and a reason for cautious optimism, namely, the peace negotiations in Jerusalem, in respect of which another important meeting took place today. The second is negative and a reason for pessimism, namely, the crisis in Gaza and the ongoing rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians.

In Jerusalem, serious and significant negotiations have been ongoing between Israeli and Palestinian leaders tackling the most difficult core issues of the conflict for the first time since the Camp David summit of 2000. The issues are the final borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state, the future of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, security arrangements, Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem, which will be discussed last. The negotiations since Annapolis are conducted on three levels. First, there are bi-weekly meetings between Israel's Prime Minister Olmert and President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Another meeting took place today, but it was wider and included more participants. Second, there are frequent meetings between Israel's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, and the former Palestinian Prime Minister and a lead negotiator of the Oslo Agreement, Abu Alah. Third, committees of experts will be meeting on specific issues such as the economy, water, airspace, the environment and so forth. The negotiations are proceeding well, but it may be too ambitious and optimistic to assume that a final agreement can be reached by the end of 2008, as some have predicted, because the issues are too complex and there are no easy solutions. However, this is a window of opportunity and Israel is committed to continuing the process.

The crisis in Gaza presents a more urgent challenge and a need for an immediate solution so as not to threaten the peace process. Israel cannot stand idly by while its citizens are under daily rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza. Since Israel's disengagement from Gaza in 2005, more than 4,000 rockets have been fired at the western Negev, Israel's southern region. Israel, as any other country, including Ireland, has the right and duty to protect its citizens. What would the distinguished members of the committee do if their homes were targeted daily by rockets?

Israel faces a dilemma. The people of Gaza are not our enemies and we are making efforts to prevent a humanitarian crisis. However, we must stop the rockets being fired at towns and villages in southern Israel. I emphasise this point because it is rarely reported in Ireland. The solution to the issue and a return to normality depend on the immediate end to rocket fire aimed at Israel by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organisations. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict swings like a pendulum between hopes for progress in Jerusalem and concerns of deterioration in Gaza.

The fundamental principle of the Israeli position is that a just, fair and comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the existence of two states living side by side in peace and security, two states for two peoples, namely, the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people in their historic birthplace and the future state of Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinians. This is the vision of Annapolis, which today is shared almost universally by the EU, US, UN, Russia and moderate Palestinians. It is rejected by extremists in the region, namely, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, which comprise the key obstacle to peace. This vision is based on reality and not dreams because each side will need to give up part of its dream. However, Israel must ensure that the Jewish and democratic character of the state is maintained.

The Palestinians will always be our neighbours and we have no aspiration to rule over them. Like the people of Israel, they have the right to a state with sovereignty and to live lives of prosperity. This conflict is not a zero sum game. For the sake of true peace, Israel is ready to compromise and to make painful concessions, including the evacuation of territories and communities. We have proven our commitment and desire for peace time after time. In 1947, we accepted the UN partition resolution and, in 1979, we returned the Sinai Peninsula, an area three times the size of Israel, to Egypt for the sake of peace with that country. We all recall President Sadat's speech at the Israeli Parliament when he declared that there would be no more war. He fulfilled this commitment, which is what helped to persuade the Israeli public to make the necessary concessions for peace.

In 2000 at Camp David, the Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, made a far reaching offer to Mr. Arafat, but Mr. Arafat rejected the offer and chose to engage in terrorism against Israel instead. In 2000, we withdrew from southern Lebanon and, in 2005, disengaged unilaterally from Gaza. Ironically, the latter two concessions resulted in an escalation in attacks against Israel.

The process of the establishment of a Palestinian state must include a war on terror. The last thing Israel, the Middle East or the world needs is the establishment of another terrorist state in the region. According to the roadmap, it is the Palestinian Authority's key obligation to dismantle all terrorist organisations and to have a monopoly over power because this is the essence of sovereignty. One cannot claim sovereignty if militias continue to operate. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founder, dismantled all paramilitary groups when the state was established.

Israel will fulfil its obligations under the roadmap. The strategy adopted by Israel following Hamas' election to the Palestinian Legislature is to distinguish between moderates with whom we continue to negotiate and extremists with whom we do not.

After Hamas' military takeover of Gaza in 2007 and its ongoing rejection of the peace process, even the Palestinian President, Mr. Abbas, has refused to negotiate with Hamas until it gives up its takeover of Gaza.

Israel and the international community, including the EU, have adopted three conditions or benchmarks for a dialogue with Hamas. These are not Israeli benchmarks but are those of the European Union, which is a very important point. Hamas must recognise Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism and violence and accept prior agreements that were signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In any future agreement, Israel will need secure and defensible borders and security arrangements that include the demilitarisation of the future Palestinian state. This is especially important for Israel, given its geography. It is three and a half times smaller than Ireland and at its narrowest point is less than nine miles wide.

There has been some criticism in the Irish media of our policy on the territories. Israel faces a dilemma that some democracies have to deal with now or will have to deal with in the near future. In fact, all democracies may have to deal at some point with the question of how to balance security and the need to fight terrorism with the obligation to protect human rights. This is a difficult dilemma to resolve.

In the peace process, Muslim and Arab countries in the region, together with the wider international community, have an important role to play. The Arab and Muslim world must support moderate Palestinians rather than Hamas extremists. Furthermore, the normalisation of those countries' relations with Israel would have a dramatic effect on Israeli public opinion. It would be a welcome development if some of those countries which still do not recognise Israel opened offices in Israel.

The international community, especially the EU, has an important role to play in the peacemaking process. It must maintain its firm position against Hamas and terrorism. It must also support Palestinian moderates with economic aid and help to build institutions of the legitimate Palestinian Government, under President Abbas.

The last issue I wish to raise here negatively influences the prospects for peace in the Middle East, namely, Iran. It is important to understand Israel's concerns. Our problem is not with the Iranian people but with the current regime in Iran. There are numerous reasons for alarm, not least of which is Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, efforts that we know are continuing. Iran's development of long-range missiles that can reach targets in the Middle East and Europe is worrying, as is its radical ideology and its calls for the destruction of Israel, including yesterday's, by the National Guard of Iran. The Iranian President's denial of the Holocaust, the country's support for terrorist groups across the globe and its rejection of the peace process are all causes for grave concern. Iran is a threat, not just to Israel, but to world peace. It is certainly a threat to the peace process.

I appeal to the committee to express its support for sanctions against Iran and to clearly condemn Iran's calls for the destruction of Israel and its denial of the Holocaust. Such a message must be heard, loud and clear.

With regard to the peace negotiations, it is clear that the past cannot be changed, but we can hope for a better future. There is no difference between the tears of a Palestinian mother mourning the loss of her child or an Israeli mother mourning the loss of hers. Ultimately, there is no military solution to this long conflict. We are determined, in Israel, in spite of everything around us, to continue our quest for peace until we reach our destination and the task is complete. It is never too soon for peace.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador and now call Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

Good afternoon. I add my voice to that of my colleague, the Israeli ambassador and thank the committee for giving us a chance to talk to you today, in the hope that we can convince you to make greater efforts to help us, Israelis and Palestinians, to achieve our goal of making the year 2008 the year of peace in the Middle East.

Peace is a need for both of us, Israelis and Palestinians. It is also an obligation for both of us, that we both must meet via bilateral negotiations. This fact was the basis on which our two great leaders the late Mr. Itzak Rabin and the late Mr. Yasser Arafat shook hands in Washington in 1993 and later signed the two agreements, Oslo 1 and Oslo 2, to end the state of war between the two parties, with May 1999 as the target date for a final status agreement. Unfortunately, the immediate outcome of Oslo 1 was the assassination of the brave Israeli leader, Mr. Itzak Rabin. This tragic incident left a vacuum in the Israeli peace theatre and the concept of peace as a need and obligation has found little, if any, room in the minds of many politicians in Israel since then. The pull out of the Israel Beitenu Party, with 11 seats, in response to the Israeli Government's decision to re-launch negotiations is a good example of this. Furthermore, Shas, one of the remaining coalition parties, with 12 seats, is now threatening to withdraw its support if the issue of Jerusalem is put on the agenda for negotiations.

This conduct in the Israeli political theatre reminds me of what US President, Mr. Jimmy Carter, told the Israeli Knesset in 1979: "The people support a settlement. Political leaders are the obstacles to peace."

The meeting in Annapolis on 27 November 2007 could have been a major turning point in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle but unfortunately it looks as if it may turn out to be yet another missed opportunity. Under the hopeful eyes of the international community, 50 countries, including 16 Arab states representing the rest of the 57 Arab and Islamic countries, and four international institutions attended that meeting. It concluded with an agreement to try to reach a peaceful settlement by the end of this year, based on a renewed effort to implement the road map to peace as presented by President George W. Bush in 2003. It looked hopeful at the beginning. To give momentum to Annapolis, President Bush visited the region to boost the morale of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their efforts to bring an end to the decades-long conflict between them. I also believe the visit was intended to emphasise the President's commitment to his vision of the two states living side by side, in peace

However, contrary to all expectations and to all his promises at Annapolis, and in an effort to keep his precarious coalition intact, the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, approved his Government's decision to expand existing illegal settlements built on occupied Palestinian land, in a clear breach of the road map and of the fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli Prime Minister also failed to observe his promise to ease the pressure on occupied Palestinians by not dismantling any of the 600 or more checkpoints which are making the lives of my people hell on earth. It is true that, as promised, the Israeli Government released a few hundred Palestinian detainees but since then more than twice the number have been arrested.

The siege of Gaza was marked by shortages in food, oil and gas, cuts to electricity affecting hospitals, homes and businesses, the constant barrage of rockets and artillery fire and daily incursions of the West Bank by the Israeli army that led to many Palestinians being arrested, injured and killed. A total of 200 Palestinians had been killed since Annapolis, 25 of them women and children. Furthermore, the refusal to allow patients access to medical care not available in Gaza, leading to an ever-increasing number of unnecessary deaths, also must be considered in the light of Annapolis and the commitment to the roadmap. Even if the world has decided not to deal with Hamas, and I agree with the world, civilian populations must be protected according to international humanitarian law and Israeli actions are clearly in breach of that.

Those practices, which met with deafening silence from the Americans who are supposed to monitor adherence to the roadmap as agreed at Annapolis, have reflected unfavourably on the speed of the negotiations, which are at snail speed, between us and the Israelis and the readiness of the donor countries to meet their financial pledges made at the Paris meeting last December, all of which were based on the fact that occupation never reconciles with democracy and never meets the needs in terms of people's development.

Our major problem with the Israelis is the illegal settlements and unless the issue of these settlements is seriously tackled and dealt with as a blatant breach of international law, all attempts by way of bilateral negotiations to build up the Palestinian economy and to establish a viable Palestinian state will fail because those settlements erode the Palestinian fabric of life and damage the viability of the two state solution by controlling Palestinian land and water resources, restricting movement of people and goods and impeding social and economic development. Furthermore, the settlements and their illegal inhabitants, the Jewish settlers, will remain a source of instability and violence.

Ironically, all world leaders, including the Americans, have made it clear that these settlements, currently occupied by nearly half a million Jewish settlers, constitute a major obstacle to the possibility of a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That viewpoint was again emphasised by the leaders of donor countries at the Paris meeting on 17 December that followed Annapolis but which again has had no impact on what is happening on the ground.

The current Israeli illegal practices in the West Bank and Gaza clearly undermine the values of Annapolis and threaten to turn it into another missed opportunity. Those practices also undermine the credibility of our leadership and put it under great pressure from our people who are calling on it to stop the negotiations. They are perceived by our people as a time buying process by the Israelis to evade any meaningful pressure from any source while gaining time to create more changes on the ground, such as expanding settlements and completing the construction of what we call the apartheid wall, which was deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice because of its land grab nature, leaving less and less land available for the proposed Palestinian state.

The time is right for the western leaders to use all their power, including pressure for a final status agreement to be reached based on the international legitimacy including UN resolutions, the roadmap and the Arab initiative, to establish a viable, contiguous Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders free from any settlements, living side by side in peace with the state of Israel. The alternative is the end of the state of Israel as rightly said by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, who told his fellow Israelis, "If the time comes when the two-state solution collapses and we face a South African struggle for equal voting rights [for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories] then as soon as that happens the state of Israel is finished."

I am here to seek the committee's support to help the Israeli Prime Minister and help Israel in remaining a democratic state in the Middle East.

Chairman

A number of speakers are offering including Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy Costello, Senator Leyden and Deputy Treacy. I will call them in that order.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I thank the Chairman for organising this meeting and for the way it has been structured. I welcome His Excellency, Mr. Evrony, and Dr. Ajjuri. It is a good sign for the future that both representatives are prepared to come to this meeting to set out the issues as they see them in a fair and open way. It gives us, as Members of this Oireachtas, an opportunity to hear both sides of the argument in a calm atmosphere, which I welcome.

There is little point in rehearsing Irish foreign policy. I am sure both gentlemen would agree it has been an even-handed policy. We want the two states to live side by side in peace and security in a land where people can raise their families without fear of attack and not in poverty, but how do we get to that point? We should note that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is also very involved in this issue.

There are three ways in which the European Union as an institution interfaces with the representatives' region. The first is through the large amounts of aid it gives to the Palestinian people, which I understand last year was in the region of €1 billion. Second, there is a trade agreement between the European Union and Israel, to which I will refer later and, third, there is the important Troika that exists with regard to the Iranian nuclear situation. I note the ambassador referred to that and I will do so also.

The ambassador kindly circulated me and perhaps other members of the Oireachtas with some of the articles he has written. In an article last summer, either in The Irish Times or The Times of London, he expressed the view that there should be no comparison between the Irish peace process and the peace process in the Middle East.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

It was the International Herald Tribune.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I thank the ambassador. I disagree with the ambassador on that because the essential part of any peace process is to recognise that civil disturbance occurs only where there is civil unhappiness. For decades in Northern Ireland we had a minority population that was repressed and unhappy and out of that unhappiness, distress and repression grew terrorism. If the causes of that repression are removed, however, terrorism will be defeated. That is the way to defeat terrorism because terrorism will not prosper in a community that is happy. That is the fundamental flaw in the ambassador's argument; I am sure he will come back to me on that. There is a major parallel between the Irish peace process and what could be the Middle East peace process. If the unhappiness and injustice is removed, terrorism will be defeated.

The second point I want to make is on the trade association between the EU and Israel. There is a human rights clause in that agreement and many international organisations have said that Israel is in breach of the human rights clause of that trade agreement because of the way the Palestinian people are being treated. I do not know if that is true because I am not an expert on the region. I have been to Israel but have not had the pleasure of visiting the Palestinian areas. I was thrilled to be in Israel and I would like to go there again. We are caught in the middle in terms of the process. It appears that the state of the Palestinian people is akin, as the delegate general said, to a hell hole. Regardless of the causes of that, people cannot live in those conditions for too long. In that context, I tabled a motion during the term of the previous chairperson, the former Deputy Gay Mitchell, calling for Israel to take down the wall, which was declared illegal by the International Court of Justice. Israel should bear that in mind.

The third point on which I wish to comment is the issue of Iran. I want to give the ambassador some good news in this respect. During the term of the previous Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, we were scheduled to visit Iran. I was one of the members who said we should visit there. However, before we had the opportunity to do so, a Holocaust conference was organised to be held in Iran, which I found to be an obscenity. It is an obscenity to deny the Holocaust took place. We cancelled our trip to Iran because of the holding of that Holocaust denial conference. We consider Holocaust denial and the way that Iran is denying the Holocaust to be completely unacceptable. That is not to say we believe Iran should be an international pariah. I do not agree with the ambassador that Iran is a threat to world peace. Iran, by and large historically, has never attacked any other country to best of my knowledge. It is an ancient civilisation. There are many disagreeable aspects to that regime, as there are to many other countries throughout the world.

Senator Terry Leyden

What about Iraq?

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

There are many other countries I do not support but that is not a reason for attacking them. The ambassador's first point concerned Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, efforts that Israel knows continue. I politely ask the ambassador to tell us about Israel's nuclear position, about its nuclear weapons. When replying he might tell us if Israel, operating completely outside the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, developed nuclear weapons in the late 1970s and 1980s, along with India and Pakistan. Ireland has a proud history of nuclear non-proliferation. If Israel has developed nuclear weapons — I am sure the ambassador will tell us whether it has — does he not realise how that would tend to destabilise the nuclear situation throughout the entire Middle East? It creates a nuclear imbalance in that region. Israel is not alone in that. We have condemned the nuclear weapons of India and Pakistan in equal measure. It is unacceptable that any country should develop nuclear weapons outside of provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is a recipe for disaster that any country would do that. The message should be brought home to the ambassador's government and parliament that it is not acceptable. It will lead to other countries in the region — which I do not wish to name — and perhaps in South America wanting to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is unacceptable. The first point the ambassador made, therefore, is not a fair one.

His second point concerned Iran's development of long-range missiles, which can reach targets in the Middle East and many targets in Europe. Does Israel have those kinds of weapons and, if it does, is that acceptable? The only way forward to bring about peace in this region and elsewhere in the world is to take all these weapons out of the equation — I stress that point. That is why Israel should seek to come clean on its nuclear programme, apply to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow for inspection of all its nuclear facilities and weapons in order that countries will not feel threatened. I am sure the ambassador will have read that a number of generals in Israel have threatened to do the work of America and unleash nuclear weapons on Iran to stop its nuclear programme. I urge him to bring back a message to Israel that this would be a recipe for disaster and, under international law, completely illegal. The only way one country can legitimately "attack" another country is if such an attack is sanctioned by the United Nations. That is the only legitimate signpost a country can have for attacking other countries.

I welcome the ambassador to this committee. I fully support the state of Israel. I want it to return to the position of its 1967 borders. I completely condemn attacks, as do all my colleagues, on Israeli citizens. That is unacceptable — let us be even-handed about that. I understand and fully support the ambassador's point that no nation can live under the constant fear of attack by rockets. However, I ask him to view the issue in a broader regional context of solving the problem of injustice and by doing that Israel will solve its problems much quicker than by way of any security solution.

Deputy Joe Costello

I welcome the two representatives, His Excellency Mr. Evrony and Dr. Ajjuri. I am pleased they are both here together, that we are discussing this issue following both of them having make an initial presentation, and I am sure neither of them would have a difficulty in responding to one or two points arising from their presentations.

The first point I would like to raise is their assessment of the talks at Annapolis. Do they genuinely believe it is a serious initiative in terms of reaching a negotiated peace solution in the Middle East, or do they consider it merely an 11th hour diversion by the President of the United States, considering he is pretty much devoid of power coming into his eighth year and is acting on a world stage where there is a major conflict without either the time or the power to effect a resolution? It is interesting that the European Union is the major donor of funds to Palestinian people and that it has a trade agreement with Israel. That speaks volumes for the status of both peoples. The Palestinian people do not have a function in the economy. There is not much sense in having a trade agreement with the Palestinians either on the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank because an economy there is virtually non-existent. We are talking about donor conferences and donor contributions, but the European Union is engaging in economic activity with Israel in the export and import of large quantities of goods. Both peoples are in different positions vis-à-vis their ability to operate in a coherent fashion. That is a sad reflection of the current position. Recent newspaper articles have covered the appalling situation in the Gaza Strip where people have had to break out into Egypt to try to get basic services, food and water. That reflects very badly on the manner in which Israel has curtailed the activities of the Palestinian people there, the numerous checkpoints and people’s inability to leave the area. In terms of the wider context, the settlements are not being dismantled in accordance with the roadmap the European Union established as its bargaining point. The roadmap provided that, on the one hand, there would be abolition or dismantling of and not a continuing freezing of the settlements and, on the other, there would be an end to terrorism and violence by Hamas. On neither of those fronts has progress been made, but if it were made on either of those aspects, we would be moving towards a solution. The manner in which Israel has dealt with the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has been contrary to international humanitarian treaties and agreements. Perhaps Mr. Evrony would respond to that.

With regard to the difficult issues of Jerusalem, the borders and the settlements, is any progress being made at present? These are the difficult issues that repeatedly arise, in addition to terrorism. There might be hope on the horizon, when one considers the situation in Northern Ireland. It was when the most extreme opponents came to power, the DUP on the one hand and Sinn Féin on the other, that a solution came about. Strangely, it was only when the middle ground was eliminated that serious talking took place, and people who could never see eye to eye on anything suddenly found themselves negotiating an agreement. Is there any possibility of the same happening in the Middle East, considering that Hamas, probably the most radical party ever, has been democratically elected to power in the Palestinian lands?

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the ambassador, His Excellency Zion Evrony, from Israel. I am delighted Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri can be present. It is great to have both our guests here at the same time to discuss this issue, which is a serious issue for Ireland. We are deeply concerned about the Middle East and particularly the conflict between Palestine and Israel. The foundations of all the major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, are in the Middle East region. Jerusalem and the region are important to all of us and we are very anxious that there be a settlement.

The Irish Government favours a two state solution — the state of Israel, secure in its borders and its people secure, and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The late Mr. Brian Lenihan, Ireland's former Minister for Foreign Affairs, was the first European Minister to recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in their own lands and region. The ambassador mentioned that the region is the historical birthplace of the Israelis but, equally, it is the birthplace of the Palestinians. The Palestinians were there before the state of Israel was established. Sometimes the history is forgotten but these matters should be put in context. I am delighted we are having this dialogue today and that both our guests are present. I hope we will have continuous dialogue. I have had much contact with the Palestinian Ambassador and his predecessor and we are well briefed on what is happening in the region.

We can only support moves towards peace but the situation in Gaza is crying out for justice. It is a disaster. I am aware that Hamas could be seen as the authors of their own destruction. After the previous administration it basically divided the Palestinians into two groups and that is unacceptable. Hamas must be recognised. I disagree with the Palestinian ambassador because Hamas won the democratic election fair and square and it should have been recognised as being legitimately elected to represent the Palestinian people in government. However, its mandate was thrown out. I am aware that Hamas does not accept the right of the Israeli people and Israel to exist but I am sure the organisation could be brought around in negotiations.

That is the current position. What is the next step? Can Hamas and the government of the West Bank be brought together to come to an arrangement for a united approach? I appeal for unity and a united approach among the Palestinians. It is a question of divide and conquer as far as Israel is concerned when there are two groups. Palestine cannot exist without the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; it must be a united group. The ports must be opened in Gaza if unity is secured. The area has tremendous opportunities for production and exports. The people of Palestine are deprived of that at present. In fact, it is like an open prison for the Palestinians. That was my impression when I led a delegation to the West Bank and Jerusalem in 2005. We were not let into Gaza.

What is causing major difficulty in the area is the continued building of this "Berlin Wall" between Israel and Palestine. It is a concrete fortification of at least ten metres dividing the country. Land that belonged to the Palestinians is behind the wall. The city of Bethlehem is now surrounded by it. The beautiful birthplace of Our Lord, Bethlehem, is now an open prison and is guarded by Israeli troops. This is unacceptable, as is the extension of the settlements. They are grabbing every bit of good quality land on the beautiful hills overlooking the Palestinian valleys. One can see, as I did, raw sewage pouring down into the valleys and destroying the agriculture of the Palestinian people. This cries out for justice. How does the Israeli Ambassador expect the people of Palestine to stand idly by and allow the continued building of settlements without restriction? They are grabbing the water. The settlements on the mountains and hills have beautiful swimming pools and look down on people who are deprived of water. Unless Israel recognises the situation there will be no settlement in the short term in the region.

Our country can only assist. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, have been very involved in aiding the Palestinians. I hope we can continue this dialogue with the two ambassadors and that we will meet regularly to try to develop the process and debate the issue.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I warmly welcome Ambassador Evrony and Dr. Ajjuri and thank them for attending the meeting. I endorse what has been said by my colleagues. Ireland wants a fair, just, equitable and reasonable two state solution to the issue. Ireland was under imperial dominance for 800 years. There has been a conflict in Northern Ireland for 300 years. There have been 30 years of ferocious bitterness in our lifetime. Through huge efforts, leadership in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and international support from the European Union and the United States, we eventually got people to sit and talk together and, ultimately, walk together. There is still a long way to go but at least, through mutual respect and recognition of the rights and responsibilities of everybody, we were able to make progress.

I have visited the countries of both our guests. I spent a week there some years ago. I visited a number of areas, including a kibbutz where I have some friends. I was not impressed. Israel cannot expect the Palestinian people to have trust when they are constantly victims of dominance, injustice and unfairness. We are prepared to make whatever contribution we can. I sat in the Council of Ministers in Europe for a number of years and we discussed the situation ad infinitum with the United States and the various representatives, particularly from Israel, to try to achieve some progress. We have been more than generous. As Deputy Costello pointed out, we have a trade agreement with Israel and there is the support mechanism. Of course, we found it difficult to deliver the cash we voted to support the Palestinian people. It was difficult to be sure we had a mechanism that would deliver it. Eventually we succeeded but it was very frustrating. Javier Solana, the EU’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, has consistently devoted a great amount of time to try to bring about a resolution. Having had at least three years’ involvement in this situation, I saw little or no progress. There must be recognition by Israel that the pre-1967 borders, free of settlements, must be tackled and that the security wall has to be removed.

I ask both representatives whether they can agree to a common travel area. If Israel is worried about security and safety for its people, can we not have reasonable, limited, legitimate permits available to Palestinian leaders and family leaders to move freely throughout the region to avail of the requirements for normal living? Can we not have a situation where at least family leaders would have permits to ensure that they can obtain necessary services, including medical and other services? Surely if Israel can make a gesture like this, we should be able to build up confidence in the Palestinian people and expect Hamas and others to begin to adopt a softer approach and a more positive attitude to reconciliation.

The European Union and the United States have been deeply involved but progress has been virtually nil. Ireland is prepared to play a role but we cannot impose ourselves, nor do we have any desire to do so. However, if the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships agree to a mechanism whereby we could be involved, we are prepared to play a role. I could see a contributing role for South Africa, a country that has come through serious tensions. I could also see a similar role for an outstanding country like Switzerland, which has an impeccable neutral record in world affairs. These are countries that have no hidden agenda or any reason to support one side or the other. We are totally committed to human rights and wish to discharge our moral and political responsibilities. We want political legitimacy for both states, along with freedom of movement and equal opportunity for all citizens on both sides.

I would like the ambassador to address this situation to see if there is anything we can do. I have one question for Dr. Ajjuri. How do we rein in Hamas and try to bring it towards accepting a full democratic path and full engagement? On the other hand, I would reiterate what Senator Leyden said to Ambassador Evrony. Once Hamas was elected, democracy is paramount; it has a legitimate role and has to be recognised. Everybody must recognise and engage with Hamas, which is a serious challenge at this time.

We have been more than generous in trying to support the rights of the Palestinian people, including financially, so that they have the necessary services. It is a tragedy to see what has happened recently when people were virtually left starving and unable to return home when they left to get food for their people. One of our own citizens was included in that serious situation in Gaza. The Middle East conflict has gone on for far too long, as the situation in Northern Ireland continued for too long also. If leadership is provided within the region, the rest of us will assist in finding an honourable conclusion.

Chairman

Lest our guests get the impression that members of the committee are lecturing them, they are not. All that has been said comes from the concerns they have expressed at this committee and privately in recent months. It is important to allow them to tell the story as they see it in the context of the EU's ongoing commitment and mission, with particular reference to the external affairs portfolio.

I agree with Deputy Mulcahy about the analogy between Northern Ireland and the Middle East. I know that Ambassador Evrony said the two situations are not analogous but in fact they are. The fact that the ambassador does not see them as being analogous is in itself a clear indication of a failure to recognise the situation as outsiders see it. For years, people used to say that others did not understand the Northern Ireland issue. Northern politicians especially used to say that others did not understand it. In fact, however, it was other people's influence that brought about the current situation, albeit with a mile still to go. That was because of the influence of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Irish Government, all of whom converged to convince those concerned that maybe there was another, better way. That is the message coming from members of the committee and it is not a criticism of our guests.

Two years ago, I visited two cemeteries in Mostar and I was shocked by the number of young people whose names were on the gravestones on both sides of the road — one Christian, the other Muslim. They were all about the same age group, from 18 to 23, and all had died in the space of 12 to 18 months. There were approximately 700 graves on either side. They are a monument to the inability of two communities to interrelate and recognise each other's position.

Every time an atrocity is committed by one side it provokes retaliation, so at what stage does that stop? Despite what others may say outside this country, Members of the Oireachtas have had an ongoing interest in what has happened on this island over the years. We all learned a very harsh lesson — that is, that given how the problem was resolved in the end, it would have been possible to solve it earlier in the same way, with a bit more input at the beginning. That is not to say that we have solved all our problems because we have not. We had religious differences, which also exist in the Middle East, and in addition there was prejudice, history, distrust, politics and international issues. Therefore it could have gone on forever. However, we believe the European Union will assist positively in trying to resolve such issues and its influence has been positive so far. To be fair, the United States, the United Kingdom and the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, will be anxious to be of some use in this respect.

I ask Ambassador Evrony and Dr. Ajjuri not to presume that we are being critical. From what they have told us, we believe they are positive. I am sorry that we are under pressure for time and I understand that both our guests were delayed due to our animated debate earlier.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

I thank the Chairman once again for this opportunity to attend the committee. I hope that we will have further opportunities to come here to discuss the issues that have been raised because, certainly from the Israeli viewpoint, I do not think one meeting is sufficient to clarify Israel's position, considering all the comments and questions that have been posed. There is a great deal of misinformation here. I will make a few general comments and I will try to refer specifically to some of the questions raised.

Chairman

While I do not wish to put the ambassador under pressure, we must vacate the room in approximately ten minutes, so I ask him to work within that timeframe.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

It would take hours to answer all the comments that have been made but I will do my best. When one criticises the policies of the state of Israel, one must remember our special, unique circumstances. One must remember our past because if one does not remember a nation's past it is very difficult to understand present policies. It should be remembered that less than 70 years ago we lost one third of our people in the Holocaust. To understand Israel's concern for security and all the security measures, one must understand the psyche and logic behind Israel's policies. One must remember the Holocaust, the genocide against the Jewish people that happened when they were defenceless. We cannot brush off security methods when the leader of another country threatens the annihilation of the state of Israel daily. For you it is another statement; we take it seriously.

Chairman

It is not, in fact. We recognise the validity of Israel's position on that one. We have no hesitation about that.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

This beautiful country which I love, Ireland, is blessed with having two great neighbours, the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea. We live in a different neighbourhood where we had to fight seven wars to defend ourselves, where we had to defend ourselves from waves of suicide bombers and where we have to defend ourselves daily from a barrage of rockets.

Do not confuse causes with consequences. When the rocket attacks end, Israeli military operations in Gaza will end. There is a confusion here and the solution is to end the firing of rockets. Israel withdrew from Gaza. There was no reason to start this wave of attacks.

Chairman

Does the ambassador recognise that each would have to cease?

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

Compromise is needed from both sides. I am not here to present a picture that everything is rosy. We have made our share of mistakes but the picture that comes out of this meeting is less critical of the Palestinian side, and unfairly so.

I appreciate the advice and the comments. Let me touch on a few key issues; for example, what is here called "the wall". Some 98% of it is not a wall. It is not like the Berlin Wall. If there was no terrorism of suicide bombers there would not be a wall. Here again is the confusion between the cause and consequence. If there was no terrorism there would not be a wall. There would not be a fence. The security fence was built to put an end to waves of suicide bombers in which 1,100 Israelis were killed and thousands injured — innocent civilians sitting in cafes, markets, supermarkets and houses of prayer. The dilemma here is between the rights of the Palestinians—

Chairman

I hate to interrupt the ambassador again. We do not disagree with him on his grievance in that area. The members have already spoken on that. They fully accept and we all appreciate that and the magnitude of the grievance as well. However, that does not address the issues now. The issue from now on is what we want to address.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

Now Israel is committed. In answer to the comment on whether this initiative of Annapolis was serious, I believe it was. I do not know whether we will reach an agreement by the end of 2008. I hope so.

Israel is seriously and honestly negotiating. Israel is ready to tackle all the issues that were raised here — settlements, borders, refugees and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Everything is on the table. We are ready to make far-reaching concessions for the sake of peace. We are committed to peace. We have proven it in the past and do not take it lightly.

However, we cannot compromise our very existence. We cannot compromise our right to security and while there are attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians, it is the right and duty of our Government — of any government such as the Irish Government if rockets were to fall on this House — to put an end to it. There are lessons to be learned from the Irish experience.

Chairman

That is correct.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

We really admire your ability to reach an agreement in Northern Ireland. However, one has to be careful not to assume that these two conflicts are identical. Indeed the role of an outside mediator and the importance of economic aid are two lessons but Hamas is not the IRA, not just because it does not recognise Israel and refuses to stop terrorism. It refuses to accept what the IRA accepted, namely, the code of conduct known as the Mitchell principles.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

After a long time.

H.E. Mr. Zion Evrony

The main point I was trying to make in this article relates to the political platform of Hamas. The committee assumes that once two political opponents engage in a political dialogue, even though their positions are diametrically opposed, the very process of the dialogue changes the dynamic of the conflict and may bring two sides together. The problem with Hamas is that its political agenda or platform and its religious belief based on an extreme interpretation of the Koran are one and the same. Can one change its religious belief? I do not think so. We do not know.

Chairman

I am going to call Mr. Evrony's colleague. We all appreciate the point his excellency makes but we would ask him also to appreciate the point that the members have made. They have their own perspective which may not be the correct one but it is another opinion. When all is said and done, another opinion may well be welcome, especially where other opinions to date have not succeeded.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I know security is a nightmare in Israel. Sometimes I appreciate what my colleague, Mr. Zion Evrony, has stated but sometimes he is trying to delude us all as if events happened yesterday. I remind him that from 1967 not even a single finger of a Palestinian was raised in the face of an Israeli until the first intifada began in 1987. That intifada broke out because our land was usurped by the Israelis. Ariel Sharon wrote a letter to Winston Churchill III in 1973 stating:

We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them ... we'll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years' time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.

This is what we are suffering from. This is what the Israelis, what Sharon, has done. Barack, the Defence Minister, told one of the Knesset committees last week that peace with the Palestinians will be achieved only when it is acknowledged that Israel is a powerful country with a finger on the trigger.

We speak of security and of Iran. I am not going to defend Iran here but for years Mubarak, the President of Egypt, has asked everyone in the Middle East to call for a nuclear-free Middle East zone and the only country against this was Israel. Let us not blame the others for what they are doing. What they are doing is a sort of retaliation. Iran is trying to balance the power in the region. Whether it means to develop nuclear weapons, the only country in the region so far possessing nuclear weapons is Israel.

The role of others is a good point which has been raised. We are dying to involve others apart from the Americans. The Israelis will never allow it. They veto any interference from anyone. Given all the relationships we both have, why is the European Union not trusted and given a role in this, at least this year of elections in America when even President Bush is engaged in his election camp? Why do we not give the Europeans the role at least to monitor what is happening?

Mention was made of Hamas and the rockets. I am 100% against Hamas. Hamas is not my party but it has gained widespread sympathy in retaliating for what the Israelis are doing against their fellow Palestinians in the West Bank. I have heard the Israelis state on many occasions that they have pulled out their forces from Gaza and ask why the Gazans are firing rockets at them, as if Gaza is a different planet. Gaza is Palestine. What do they expect? Imagine if Dublin, God forbid, was being attacked by certain countries and we asked the people in Cork or Galway not to lift a finger against it because it had nothing to do with them. This is what is expected. I ask my colleagues, the Israelis, to realise that I am on their side. The last thing I asked was that the state of Israel be protected but that this should be as a democratic Middle Eastern state and not as an occupying power.

Let us look back to 1993 and the Madrid conference. I call Mr. Rabin a great leader but he was notorious in the context of breaking our bones. However, he was a great leader because he went against the path of the Likud Party, which led the Israelis to Madrid. Mr. Shamir, who was then Prime Minister of Israel and who opposed Mr. Rabin, told the Israelis we could have held the negotiations for ten years. That is why the Israelis want negotiations for the sake of negotiations. The entire area was occupied in six days. Why does it take six years to evacuate Israeli forces from the land taken in 1967?

Let us be realistic and let us play the role of victim. Israel is in the wrong, whether he likes it or not. The last thing about which I want to remind my friend, the ambassador — I call him friend because we have chatted and had a drink together on too many occasions—

Chairman

That is a positive development.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

—and I like him on a personal level — is that this retaliation is justice. The Hamas pipes to which he refers are rockets. They injured seven Palestinians and two Israelis to date. They also fell on our heads. They are stupid and they are playing the Israeli game. This is what the Israelis want.

I once told people that if I was given the choice to beat a boxer, I would choose to do so. Hamas chose to get into the boxing ring with Mr. Sharon. We are trying to convince our friends and colleagues in Hamas to change. There is a split within Hamas. There are people in Hamas who are acting against the leadership. A press conference took place in the West Bank recently — my colleague, the ambassador, must have heard about it — in which they called on their fellow militants to hand over their illegal weapons to the Palestinian Authority and to recognise Abbas as the Palestinian leader. I heard that such a thing is happening in Gaza and I hope this is true.

The difficulties between Hamas and us are a Palestinian issue. I am sure we will be able to resolve it, perhaps, as previously, by involving more Arabs. We can do so, provided the Israelis give us an opportunity. With their escalation of military means to combat Hamas, they are offering the latter a hell of a lot of power and giving it the chance to gain more support from people in the surrounding Arab countries.

Chairman

This has been an extremely worthwhile and useful discussion from the committee's point of view. The views expressed will be incorporated in our report and brought to the attention of the Minister in the context of our submissions to him for future GAERC meetings. I thank both our guests for attending. They are both likeable fellows and it is good to hear that they have the odd drink together. Long may that continue. As Winston Churchill once said, "Jaw jaw is better than war war". We wish our guests well and thank them for attending.