We are guests of the committee.
I thank the committee for the invitation to speak in my role as chair for the Delegation for Relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council. That is a mouthful so we usually shorten it to DPLC. For the record, I am also a member of the all-party European Parliament Middle East Working Group, led by Hans-Gert Pöttering, a former President of the European Parliament. That is an all-party group which meets on a regular basis. I am also a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly. I believe some committee members are also members. It is hoped that it will become the parliamentary assembly of the Euro-Mediterranean Union.
The approach of the EU to the conflict in the Middle East has been set out in the most recent comprehensive statement of 8 December 2009, which states in the first paragraph:
The Council of the European Union is seriously concerned about the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process. The European Union calls for the urgent resumption of negotiations that will lead, within an agreed time-frame, to a two-state solution with the State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. A comprehensive peace, which is a fundamental interest of the parties in the region and the EU, must be achieved on the basis of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, the Madrid principles, including land for peace, the roadmap, the agreements previously reached by the parties and the Arab peace initiative.
As Chair of the DPLC, and personally, that is the position which I support and which underlies all my comments and work on the matter. I can send a copy of this to the secretariat so that members can have this speech as delivered.
This position is supported fully by the European Parliament. It is referenced in the resolution we adopted on 10 March calling for the implementation of the Goldstone report on the war on Gaza. Members will recall that over 1,400 civilians died in that assault, including over 300 children. Also killed were 11 Israelis, including two civilians.
The committee's invitation to me is in the context of its consideration of a resolution to consider whether Article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement has been breached by the parties to it, with regard to their human rights obligations. Members will be aware that the European Parliament takes very seriously the issue of respect for human rights which, under the treaties, are at the core of EU concerns both internally and internationally. For example, apart from ensuring in the course of our general work that human rights are taken into account in development, enlargement and trade policy, we also select three "urgent" human rights issues on the Thursday of each of our plenary sittings in Strasbourg.
At our last plenary sitting on Thursday, 11 March, we selected the case of Gilad Shalit, the young Israeli soldier who was taken prisoner by Hamas some four or five years ago, and called for his release. We took the escalation of violence in Mexico as an issue that needed to be addressed and chose the issue of legalisation of the death penalty in South Korea as one on which the Parliament should take a position. Resolutions were adopted on all three. We do this at each plenary session each month, taking one issue or another as appropriate in terms of the rules of the Parliament.
As members will know, the association agreement places obligations on both parties, Europe and Israel, to ensure the human rights of those for whom they are responsible, are respected. The agreement states that human rights "constitute an essential element of this agreement". It is beyond reasonable doubt that Israel and the EU are both in breach of their obligations under this agreement. Israel is in breach because of its continued occupation of the West Bank and its illegal annexation of east Jerusalem; its actions against the population of Gaza during its war on that area in December 2008 to January 2009; its blockade of that territory before and since that war; its daily restrictions on the movement of the people of the West Bank with over 600 checkpoints; its collusion in the eviction of families in east Jerusalem; and its detention of Palestinian children and 23 elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council who were lifted by the Israeli authorities in retaliation for the taking prisoner of Gilad Shalit, some 40 members were arrested at the time of whom 23 remain in prison. Other Israeli breaches of the agreement are: the building of a 700 km security wall which illegally encroaches on Palestinian territory; and the planting of 500,000 Israeli citizens in settlements in the West Bank, including in east Jerusalem. These settlers are supported with subsidies, services and tax concessions. It should be borne in mind the number of settlers in the area has doubled compared with the figures at the signing of the Oslo Accords, 16 or 17 years ago. That agreement called for a reduction in the number of settlers. There are now 200,000 settlers in east Jerusalem and 300,000 in the West Bank.
There are also concerns about human rights in Israel itself, in particular with regard to the second-class citizenship status of the Israeli-Palestinian minority, which accounts for almost 20% of the population of Israel. More recently there are increasing signs of human rights defenders in Israel coming under pressure for having co-operated with the UN inquiry into the war on Gaza. This has also been adverted to in the European Parliament's Goldstone resolution.
Europe, the other party to the agreement, is guilty, in my view, of breaching it by failing to enforce a solemn international agreement and respect the imperative of the European treaties. This is particularly the case when one considers that in recent months it has taken action with regard to Sri Lanka and Guinea. In both those cases it suspended agreements with those countries because it considered that human rights were not being dealt with appropriately.
The effect of a suspension of the association agreement and a freeze on the development of relations would not prevent Israeli goods coming into EU member states, but these would not benefit from the free trade arrangements that currently apply. Europe currently imports €11 billion from Israel and exports €14 billion worth of goods to it. Ireland's share of that trade is €82 million and €300 million, respectively. Those imports would include imports by the Irish Defence Forces of military equipment. No doubt a suspension of the agreement would affect those exports, as Israel would be likely to retaliate.
A judgment on 25 February 2010 of the Court of Justice of the European Union in what is known as the "Brita Case" — Case number: C-386/08 — highlights the issue of goods being imported into the EU from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. It must be assumed that this includes east Jerusalem which is also illegally occupied under United Nations resolutions. The court found that such goods are not entitled to the benefits of the association agreement and that it is incumbent on Israel to produce documentation to the satisfaction of the importing state that the goods are from Israel proper, and not from settlements. It would be instructive to know what steps the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has taken to insist on such proof.
In my view, the findings of the Goldstone report should lead to a suspension of the association agreement with Israel. The Goldstone inquiry found evidence of breaches of human rights by both sides in Israel's last major offensive against Gaza, but predominantly by Israel, no doubt due to its overwhelming firepower. However, the most damning of all its findings is the conclusion in paragraphs Nos. 1883 to 1886: I shall quote these because it is important to take them all in context. Paragraph 1883 states:
The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government, thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.
Paragraph 1884 states:
In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support. The mission considers this position to be firmly based in fact, bearing in mind what it saw and heard on the ground, what it read in the accounts of soldiers who served in the campaign, and what it heard and read from current and former military officers and political leaders whom the mission considers to be representative of the thinking that informed the policy and strategy of the military operations.
Paragraph 1885 states:
The mission recognises that the principal focus in the aftermath of military operations will often be on the people who have been killed — more than 1,400 in just three weeks. This is rightly so. Part of the functions of reports such as this is to attempt, albeit in a very small way, to restore the dignity of those whose rights have been violated in the most fundamental way of all — the arbitrary deprivation of life. It is important that the international community asserts formally and unequivocally that such violence to the most basic fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals should not be overlooked and should be condemned.
Paragraph 1886 states:
In this respect, the mission recognizes that not all deaths constitute violations of international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality acknowledges that, under certain strict conditions, actions resulting in the loss of civilian life may not be unlawful. What makes the application and assessment of proportionality difficult in respect of many of the events investigated by the mission is that deeds by the Israeli armed forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that, as a whole, they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the "supporting infrastructure." In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population.
In other words the appalling devastation and death toll in Gaza, according to the Goldstone report, was not because individual soldiers did not follow orders but because they obeyed orders which originated at the highest political level.
Despite this finding by a reputable international team, which has been endorsed by the European Parliament and United Nations General Assembly, we find that on 22 March, instead of at least putting on hold any extensions of the agreement, the foreign affairs Council, attended by the Minister, Deputy Martin, approved a new protocol to the agreement further enhancing our co-operation with Israel. I refer to the decision COM (2009) 559, which approves a new protocol covering industrial products.
This issue has already landed on the desk of the European Parliament's international trade committee for consideration. The European Parliament cannot amend the proposal but with the new provisions of the Lisbon treaty, consent is required. We could refer it back to Council pending an inquiry into breaches of the association agreement, we could give consent or we could reject it outright, as we did recently with the SWIFT agreement with the United States on the transfer of financial information. This Oireachtas committee can also take a position on it.
I am on record as praising the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, for his insistence in going to see the awful consequences of the Israeli army's assault on the people of Gaza. He made a clear indication in an article he wrote for The New York Times subsequently, stating “I view the current conditions prevailing for the ordinary population [of Gaza] as inhumane and utterly unacceptable in terms of accepted international standards of human rights.” He went on to say “The European Union and the international community simply must do more to increase the pressure for the ending of the blockade and the opening of the border crossings to normal commercial and humanitarian traffic.”
In light of that statement it is utterly incomprehensible that he would vote last week for improved relations with Israel. It is time we had some joined-up thinking on human rights. I will conclude with a quote from Mr. Justice Richard Goldstone, who stated at the launch of his report on 29 September in Geneva:
Now is the time for action. A culture of impunity in the region has existed for too long. The lack of accountability for war crimes and possible crimes against humanity has reached a crisis point; the ongoing lack of justice is undermining any hope for a successful peace process and reinforcing an environment that fosters violence. Time and again, experience has taught us that overlooking justice only leads to increased conflict and violence.
I thank the committee.
