On a side issue, Deputy Mulcahy referred, although I may not be quoting him correctly, to a cosy club of industrial countries in the EU when talking about the abstentions from the vote of the UN Human Rights Council. I have spent the last year advocating Europe and explaining how Europe has been good for us and for our European neighbours. I would not like people to think there is a cosy club of industrialised European states. That is something on which we should seek a view if the Minister for Foreign Affairs comes before the committee. I am not privy to what happens at Council meetings other than from the reports I have seen.
With respect to Deputy Mulcahy's motion, I agree with virtually all of what he said, apart from his last comment about part B of our motion. I appreciate the comments made by the Chairman at the beginning and I do not want to rehash the full debate, but this is not a case of right or wrong. It is a case of rights and wrongs in general, and to criticise one side should not be seen as support for the other. We in Fine Gael have adopted a moderate, middle-of-the-road line on this. Over the past 12 to 18 months, when there have been difficulties in the Gaza Strip, irrespective of what side they were on, we have issued statements, although they may not always have received coverage. During the current crisis, the moderate line has not received much coverage, while the extremes have, be it in the letters pages of the newspapers or in other areas of the media. There is no solution to be found at the extremes. It will never be solved until everyone moves to a middle-ground position. While I do not want to bore the committee, it is important to outline that Fine Gael would like to see the immediate adoption of UN Resolution 1860, which proposes an end to the current conflict, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, a cessation of the Hamas rocket attacks and the facilitation of humanitarian assistance through the border crossings. In broader terms we favour a two-state solution, a return to pre-1967 borders unless amended by agreement by the two parties, an agreed solution to the Palestinian refugees who left their homes in 1948 and 1967, and Israel ceasing settlement activities and dismantling all outposts erected since March 2001. It is important to put that on the record again.
To achieve this all Palestinians must cease all acts of violence and commit to peace. We also recognise Israel's right to protect its citizens from attacks. However, in doing so it must act within international law. While I welcome Deputy Mulcahy's motion, with which I have no difficulty, he quite rightly makes the argument that it is not possible to hold the Palestinian Authority responsible for what is happening in Gaza and questions whether it is responsible for Hamas or not. He is quite justified in asking that question. I cannot recall whether the Joint Committee for European Affairs had a similar motion regarding the South African ambassador relating to the difficulties in Zimbabwe. I will not list the litany of other countries we have discussed where we could have called in ambassadors. Perhaps it is not a bad thing for us to take such a proactive approach. I would hope that we might conduct a more consistent role in highlighting the difficulties.
I will concentrate on Gaza because if that conflict was not happening at the moment, these motions would not be before the committee. The acts have been deplorable. The killing of innocent children and the indiscriminate reckless attacks on positions in Gaza by the Israelis are deplorable, as are the activities of Hamas, which uses the cover of civilian areas to launch attacks. I am conscious that from the fog of war the truth takes a long time to win out. However, from this remove, I would be reasonably certain that both sides have broken the Geneva Convention and international law. Time will probably prove that to be the case.
I also agree with much of Deputy Costello's motion. One must condemn the wanton killing. There are two sides, although in the Gaza conflict it is very much weighted in favour of the Israelis. It should not be interpreted as passive acceptance of what is happening there, which is not the case. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach will use every channel open to them to relay the concern of Irish people and take the necessary steps to get our message across. Deputy Costello has informed me that he will mention something about Hamas. However, his motion all comes down on one side. Irrespective of who is right and who is wrong — in my view both are right and both are wrong — tabling a motion that is clearly in favour of one or the other would do nothing to assist the situation.
This issue is the most emotive issue I have come across in the foreign affairs area. One of the difficulties I have with it is that almost everyone who deliberates on it is on one side or the other. I do not know the extent of the middle ground, if it exists in this country, but I am certainly in the middle ground, as is my party. However, during times of conflict the middle ground view is generally suppressed, as evidenced by the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs the previous day. The moderate middle ground view did not get any airing. It is the only view that will solve this problem.
I served in Lebanon. I encountered the Israelis and the south Lebanese army at first hand. I saw what they did and know what they are capable of doing. I saw Mossad in operation. I saw its people come in, blow up homes and kidnap people. Israeli-backed forces and, indeed, the IDF itself have murdered members of the Irish peacekeeping group in the UNIFIL operation in Lebanon, just as many of the Arab terrorist groups have murdered members of the Irish forces. I have seen the use of women and children as human shields, done with wanton disregard for children. Neither side on this conflict has a monopoly on concern for children. Both sides have no regard for innocent children, as evidenced by the attacks on Gaza and the rockets fired on Israel with many innocent people terrorised. People need not tell me about the rights and wrongs. I will not go down the road of developing the thing from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs meeting of the previous day. However, if I need to come back in on it, I will do so.
I believe my motion gives a balanced approach. I mentioned the European Union Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy because, in the first instance, she should deliver on an EU-based agreement. I do not have any difficulty with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or anyone else expressing a view to the committee. It would be a very good idea. This committee could consider setting up a forum, perhaps not as extensive as the sub-committee investigating Ireland's future in the EU. That may be something we should consider in the months ahead, preferably in the atmosphere of a ceasefire which I hope will come in the next few days. We could set up a forum in this committee and invite various people. If we cannot come up with some middle ground and a unanimous position removed from the heat of conflict, destruction and death, how can we expect groups at the coalface to have any semblance of understanding or common ground?
I ask Deputy Mulcahy to consider our amendment, which is tabled in the best interests of representing the middle ground. I do not know what the outcome of such an investigation would be, but I would be reasonably sure that Article 2 has been breached by both sides. No one should have anything to be afraid of by taking a look at it. We should not impose any sort of censorship in this conflict. There are two sides, although they can be weighted in a particular direction. In the Gaza Strip it is very much weighted against the Palestinian civilians. In the greater scheme of things in the Middle East it is very much weighted against Israel.
The conflict in Palestine and Israel cannot be compartmentalised. It is not a stand-alone issue. It is part of a greater problem. For the past seven years foreign policy in this area has stagnated. The five-month ceasefire in 2008 could have been built upon if the political will and vision had existed. However, an unpopular American policy clouded by an ill-conceived judgment on the terrorist axis of evil impinged on all policy in the Middle East.
Israel needs to open up and begin to deal with Syria on the Golan Heights issue. The actions of Israel in the past week certainly will make it much more difficult for the moderate states of Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority to deal with the more extreme states. America needs to open dialogue with Iran which not only poses many threats to the western world but also wants to dominate the Arab heartland itself. At the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs I requested that the Iranian ambassador be invited in to ascertain how Iran could assist in developing the peace process.
It is wider than just one issue. However, the Palestinian-Israeli issue is clearly the main one. It is the spark that ignites the difficulty. It is the kernel. There are many other related issues that need to be dealt with. The destitution of the Palestinian people in Gaza is deplorable, as we have articulated several times in recent months. I strongly recommend that the members of the joint committee support the Fine Gael amendment. I do not have any difficulty with the gist of the Fianna Fáil proposal as long as it forms part of a more balanced approach such as that outlined in our amendment. While the Fianna Fáil motion and the Fine Gael amendment deal specifically with the two trade policies, the Labour Party motion goes further by dealing with the general principle. I suggest it should be amended radically to reflect a more balanced approach. We are not on either side here; we are on the side of humanity and legality. I do not think I can support the Labour Party motion today. I would be happy to consider an amended Labour Party motion that is more balanced. I do not have a difficulty with 99% of its contents.
