JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Jun 2010

Situation in the Middle East: Motions

Chairman

We meet today to discuss the joint committee's motions on the situation in Gaza and the EU-Israel Euro Mediterranean Association Agreement 1995, in particular Article 2 concerning the parties' human rights obligations. It is proposed that the hearings will be dealt with in two sessions, the first of which will take place from 12.45 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. at which time the joint committee will hear a submission from Mr. Desmond Travers, co-author of the Goldstone report. The committee will then suspend and reconvene at 2.30 p.m.

These hearings arise from motions passed by the committee in January 2009 wherein there was reference to the special arrangement between the European Union, through Euro-Med, and Israel and the situation in Gaza which came to prominence in late 2008-early 2009. Following much animated discussion on this issue at that time and to progress matters members of this committee in association with members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Gaza to see for themselves the situation on the ground. A report was duly compiled, published, circulated and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. It was deemed to be a satisfactory report. It was also part and parcel of the follow-up to the discussions which took place in January 2009.

To progress matters further and, in accordance with the motions passed by the committee, these hearings will try to arrive at some conclusion as to what happened, whether there were human rights abuses, breaches of the arrangements between Israel and the European Union and what should be done. We will not do so in a fashion that will be disruptive or in any way regressive but in a manner that will be helpful to the situation now prevailing in that region. We must also be mindful of the past situation and the causes of both sides. It is hoped that given the importance of the subject matter members will be focused in terms of what they have to say and that there will be less reference to propaganda and more reference to the actual situation in an effort to determine facts.

We have received apologies from Deputy Noel Treacy and Senators Maurice Cummins, Ronan Mullen and Terry Leyden.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members of the committee have absolute privilege. However, I remind them of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Mr. Desmond Travers to make his presentation. The usual procedure is a ten minute presentation followed by a question and answer session. We thank Mr. Desmond for attending and appreciate his being here given his particular involvement and knowledge of the situation.

Mr. Desmond Travers

Is mór an onóir dom teacht os comhair an choiste chun nithe práinneacha a tharla in Gaza agus i ndeisceart Iosrael agus an tuarscáil Goldstone a phlé.

It is my great pleasure to appear before the joint committee to speak about the events that occurred in Gaza and southern Israel and on the report generated as a consequence of those events, now commonly known as the Goldstone Report. I would like also to update the committee in respect of that report as it is now ten months since it was voted into existence. I particularly appreciate as an Irish citizen that I have been asked to participate in this fact finding mission and am particularly grateful to my country, at a time when we are hearing not so good news, that it saw fit to vote the Goldstone report into existence and to do so somewhat in a minority of regional circumstances, a fact of which I am proud. I know my fact finding mission colleagues are at one with me in taking note of those countries which took the decision to vote, in particular the European countries. It took a certain amount of courage and integrity to do so. I would like my appreciation to be recorded.

The Goldstone Report is now ten months in existence. It has been the subject of much media interest, many attacks and much criticism. Papers and theories have been propounded to challenge its reliability. Mr. Richard Goldstone in a public declaration stated that if there was any substantive new evidence or finding in the report that was incorrect or inaccurate we would reconvene and correct it. Nothing has been produced by Governments or by institutes or academies to cause us to come and review that finding. If anything, it is now more urgently necessary than before that the Goldstone Report be attended to. I say this in light of the continuation of the blockade and of recent events on the high seas.

I am constrained from saying much more than that because the Goldstone report is active. The general assembly and European Union voted that the parties to the conflict should institute investigations into the conduct of their personnel during what was known as Operation Cast Lead and that finding by the belligerents should be the subject of examination this July. This means I must declare a wish, hope or indication of optimism that findings will be produced by both belligerents. In addition, the High Commissioner for Human Rights had convened a special technical expert group to further evaluate the Goldstone report to come up with any additional factors relating to human rights or breaches of international humanitarian law. Its findings are due in September 2010. I am doubly constrained from making comments which could be seen as prejudicial to the work of the international community vis-à-vis the Goldstone report.

I would like, nevertheless, to make comments which underpin the whole purpose of the report which was conveyed to me by Mr. Justice Richard Goldstone when I first met him in Geneva. I think he took time out to speak to me directly because I do not have a formation in the laws, I am simply a retired soldier. He said something on the following lines: "We are about getting the facts and making appropriate findings but our core purpose is to recommend the introduction of justice mechanisms, accountability and ultimately an end to impunity — I repeat, an end to impunity". He said that, "By this means — I am speaking from my experience in South Africa — we can usher in the possibility of a renewal of the peace process in the Middle East". He further said, that without justice and accountability and an end to impunity there can be no enduring peace process in the Middle East. As a soldier, that sounded like a mission statement. We are conditioned to living and hanging our hat on mission statements so that when things confuse, side-track, anger or annoy us in the military, we use the mission statement as a mantra. I found that mission statement wholly comfortable with my life experience, primarily for more than 30 years in the Middle East. I will tell the committee the reason for this.

I have been to the Middle East off and on since 1964 but for protracted periods since 1980. I have seen various incursions, intrusions, conflicts, battles, shell fires, artillery duels and so on occurring within the territory of Israel itself and in the surrounding countries. One constant that comes to mind when I think back is that each engagement increases in intensity compared with the previous one, the levels of destruction magnify by five or ten fold and the development of technologies, hitherto undreamt of by soldiers, which give precision accuracy — absolute pinpoint accuracy — have been used for indiscriminate purposes. Let me illustrate it for the committee. I visited a village in 2006 in south Lebanon during the Israeli-Hizbollah war where every single house along a street was struck and destroyed with precision-guided munitions directed into each of those buildings. In the centre of that street there was a food market but it was not destroyed. The roof was penetrated by a precision-guided munition which was an incendiary munition designed to burn all the food process within the building and leave the building standing. It was almost like saying "Look at what we can do, we can do anything".

There was an increasing spiral of violence at both ends. When I looked at it in 1980 the various resistance movements in Lebanon were simply young men with Kalashnikov rifles who were very disorganised. When I saw them again in 2006 they were the most sophisticated insurgent movement in the world who when they tried out a new military appliance against Israel, if it did not work they had an adaptation within 24 hours delivered to them, probably from Iran. There is this continuing spiral of violence begetting violence and the more it increases the greater the likelihood of a peace initiative or process being removed from the negotiating table. Ergo, the need to stop violence is critical to creating a hiatus or a vacuum wherein dialogue can be ushered in.

I wish to speak for a moment on the blockade because it connects to something in the Goldstone report that we observed during the last days of the Israeli occupation. The Goldstone report states that the actions in Gaza were completely disproportionate and were unquestionably a punishment of the people. There is a possibility that in itself was an understatement. During the final days a series of sub-operations took place with the Israeli ground forces which they nicknamed "the day after." That did not really impact on me in any special way except there was a continuation of the retribution until one began to do an analysis of the effects on the agricultural sector — I will exclude everything else —vis-à-vis the continuation of the blockade. Let me explain how this worked out. Some 200 heavy-duty bulldozers were brought in and they bulldozed 130 farms and 305 agricultural wells out of existence. When the farmers returned and sought import licences to bring in water pumps to restore the pumps, they were refused permission. They bulldozed away 140,000 olive trees and 136,000 citrus trees. I could go on and on to the other sources of nourishment and the other plants but these were the large tracts of land that were covered with produce.

This means that an entire sector of the eastern part of Gaza has been turned into a vast open plain. That vast open plain has allowed the Israeli military to extend its buffer zone with its machine guns and its observation from 300 m, which was already illegal, to 1,000 m. Farmers who now approach within 1,000 m are fired at or threatened, or both. Some 1,000 m may not be much to us but it is almost one quarter of the width of the territories of Gaza in certain areas. Put another way, when we started to look at the destruction of the agricultural sector last September we learned that 6,800 donums of land were destroyed either by saturation from sewage, salination or other forms of erosion, such as drying out. A donum is one-tenth of a hectare and 6,800 donums is approximately 1,500 acres. Later the destruction was reviewed by the human rights organisations concerned with agriculture and it was clear that 20,000 donums, that is, 2,000 hectares, were destroyed. Towards the end of the last year, they no longer talked about hectares or donums, but about percentages of arable land that was unavailable for cultivation and the figure we were given was 30%. Early in the new year that figure became 36% and a week ago, 67% of the arable land of Gaza was removed from productivity at a time when people are on marginal nutrition and where there is evidence of malnourishment, the consequences among children are increasingly evident.

This is a very troubling situation because we are not talking about a buffer zone. At 300 m it was a buffer zone but we are now talking about a new hidden blockade which nobody seems to want to mention. I mention it because it is very sinister, that is, the possibility of the removal of Gaza as a viable environment should the blockade continue for a few more years..

I will depart somewhat from the Goldstone report and make one or two comments with respect to the European Union. I mention a prestigious journal, Le Monde Diplomatique, which I understand is a well-informed journal of record, and will make some comments about complicity and the European Union and its biggest trading partner. Europe is Israel’s biggest trading partner and trade continues, which is fine. However, trade in technologies that develop weapons is not fine and should be reviewed. An article in that journal states that in December 2008, the European Union decided to upgrade bilateral relations with Israel giving it great power status, that two weeks later the Israeli army began its assault on Gaza and that Europe’s decision could be seen as a green light for the attack. Recently, Israel was admitted to the OECD. Was this also a green light for the Israeli action on the high seas?

In an article in The Guardian, Chris Patten referred to the European Union’s continued trade agreements, in particular with Israeli companies involved in dual use activity. Dual use means the development of technologies which have equal applicability to the development of weapons. He states that these European Union funds are for companies so designated. His argument is that Europe can no longer remain passive, in particular when Israel’s major ally may be somewhat constrained in the present circumstances.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I join the Chairman in welcoming Colonel Travers and congratulate him on the work he has done in a very sincere and dedicated way. I will put into context what we are trying to do a little more than the Chairman did in his introduction. He alluded to it towards the end of his contribution.

As Colonel Travers knows, the European Union has association agreements with several countries. It is normal, as part of that process, that there is an exchange of information, trade, closer political links and so on. It is a tenet of the European Union internally and externally that human rights must be a key part of any association agreement because it is a matter of standards. The European Union holds itself up as having high standards in the area of human rights and, therefore, any country that it associates with must also have high standards in this area.

Colonel Travers may be aware that the EU and Israel entered into the initial association agreement in 1995. Article 2 of that agreement states: "Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement."

From what Colonel Travers has seen, I am interested in his opinion vis-à-vis the Israeli actions in Gaza. How would he assess the Israeli commitment to human rights and democratic principles? Does he believe human rights and democratic principles guide its internal and international policy?

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank Colonel Travers for enlightening us on the matters with which he has dealt in the Goldstone report and the investigation which took place. I am struck by the considerable similarity between the terms of reference he was given and the motions we passed while the conflict was ongoing, such as investigating all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of military operations conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009.

Deputy Mulcahy referred to the association agreement. We specifically sought to establish whether there were breaches of human rights and international law in the context of the trade agreement. I am interested in Colonel Travers's response to that.

Is Colonel Travers satisfied his methodology was above reproach in terms of the manner in which he conducted his business? While there may not have been any serious undermining of his conclusions, some questions have been raised by certain people in different fora that his investigation might not have been as thorough as it could have been, that the methodology might not have been as careful and extensive as might have been warranted and that they might not necessarily agree with the conclusions.

Israel refused to co-operate with Colonel Travers. How serious was that in terms of his ability to come to substantial conclusions in regard to his terms of reference? The period with which he was dealing was up to the end of the conflict in Gaza on 18 January 2009 but he indicated that he looked at the matter post that date and found that even afterwards, there was continuing activity on the ground which seemed to be directed at undermining the viability of Gaza as an integral entity in its own right. Will Colonel Travers expand a little on that?

Prionsias De Rossa, MEP

I welcome Colonel Travers and thank him for a very interesting contribution. He mentioned that the Goldstone report is active and there will be findings in September. What body is looking at this again? I know the Human Rights Council will look at it in July but I was not aware of September and I would like to know the position there.

It was stated that if any substantive new evidence was found, the team would return to the report to correct any misinformation. Has any evidence been presented to the Goldstone team? Who evaluated it and in what way was it evaluated?

I have already made a submission to this committee as a Member of the European Parliament but I was struck by article 1886 of the Goldstone report which referred to the principle of proportionality and the difficulty of assessing the issue of proportionality. It draws attention to the events investigated by the mission. It states 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"." It further states "In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population." This appears to indicate that the issue at hand does not relate specifically to wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers but rather to the political responsibility regarding the nature of the attack on Gaza. This matter must be pursued by the Israeli authorities. Does Colonel Travers wish to make any further comment on that?

In light of his experience in Lebanon and the Middle East in general, I am sure Colonel Travers is well aware of the so-called Dahiya doctrine. Will he explain what that entails, how it arose and how it might apply in the context of the Goldstone report?

I echo Colonel Travers's point regarding a culture of impunity. When he launched the report at a press conference in September of last year, Mr. Justice Goldstone made the point that by then the time had already come to act because the culture of impunity had remained in place too long. The assault on the aid flotilla, which resulted in nine people dying and more than 40 being injured, was again a result of Israel's sense of impunity. In other words, regardless of what it does, the international community will not take sanctions against it. Perhaps Colonel Travers is not in a position to comment on that. However, Mr. Justice Goldstone has commented that "Time and again, experience has taught us that overlooking justice only leads to increased conflict and violence."

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish to raise three issues with Colonel Travers. I am at pains to point out that I do not subscribe to the view — which has been put to me privately — that his approach to his involvement with the Goldstone report may have been influenced by his experiences with regard to Israel and the IDF prior to his being appointed to co-author that report. How does Colonel Travers respond to that claim? Does he believe there is any basis for it?

Colonel Travers referred to precision bombing. I agree with what he said on this. When I visited Gaza in the company of my party's leader, Deputy Kenny, and others, one of the points that was made to us by Members of the Knesset was that a campaign of precision bombing was carried out there and that this was aimed exclusively at members of Hamas. How does Colonel Travers reconcile that claim with the bombing of the American International School, which resulted in the caretaker there being killed, and the bombing of the industrial areas of Gaza in the closing days of the campaign?

The purpose of this meeting is to determine if Israel has breached the terms of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement of 1995. Does Colonel Travers wish to make a judgment call on that? Is it is his view that Israel has or has not breached Article 2? Would he be comfortable providing an opinion on it?

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I echo Deputy Timmins's final question as to whether Colonel Travers is in a position to indicate whether Article 2 was breached. Colonel Travers highlighted the fact that if new evidence was presented, the commission which produced the Goldstone report could be reconstituted to examine it. What procedure would be followed in this regard? Has anyone tried to present such new evidence?

Senator Feargal Quinn

Will Colonel Travers indicate what he believes is the solution to this problem? We struggled for many years to arrive at a solution for Northern Ireland and for long periods we could not identify what steps to take. The main difficulty in respect of Northern Ireland was that we could not bring those with opposing views together. The Israelis will state that the moment they withdraw from Gaza, their country will be subjected to rocket and bomb attacks launched from within that territory. It is, therefore, understandable that the first steps will not be taken until a solution to this problem can be found.

What can be done to bring about a situation whereby Hamas can state that it recognises the right of Israel to exist? I do not believe a solution will be found if Hamas does not abandon its current stance. I accept that there are different factions within that organisation. Is there a way in which the roadmap can work? Will it be possible for Mr. Tony Blair, Senator George Mitchell and others to produce a solution? Will the efforts of these individuals come to naught? Is Colonel Travers in a position to outline a possible solution?

Chairman

Senator Quinn referred to a matter the committee discussed on many previous occasions. Unless there is an intention to move forward, nothing will ever happen. That was the experience on this island in the past. It took a long period for people on both sides of the divide on this island to realise that movement of the kind to which I refer had to take place. There are those who dismiss any comparison between the situation in Ireland and that which obtains in the Middle East. That is a self-serving and dangerous exercise. I do not claim to possess exhaustive knowledge of the region. However, I visited it in 1979 and again last year, in the company of other members. The sad truth is that matters there have become worse.

Colonel Desmond Travers

The important questions raised by members cut to the core of the issue. I hope I will be able to respond to most of them. I am not a political or diplomatic expert. I came on board as a military analyst who had been involved in war crime investigation for the eight years previous to the establishment of the Goldstone commission. I do my best because I believe I am obliged to do so.

Deputy Mulcahy referred to the human rights association agreement and Israel's position in respect of it. The extraordinary thing about Israel and the Jewish tradition is that it has a phenomenal history of adversarial discourse and dialogue and is possessed of a very robust judicial system. The problem in recent times is that the right to self-expression and dissent in Israel has been increasingly constrained. This is very troubling. I am beginning to believe that the more one considers the Middle East, the more one must look inside Israel, where there are many intractable problems. Some of them are inevitable as a result of the multi-ethnicity of the societies in that country. Each of those societies has its own agenda and each is implacably opposed to any change in their right to do whatever it is they have chosen to do. In that context, it has been suggested that the settler community in the West Bank is virtually independent of Israel's security and peace settlement concerns.

Nevertheless we were very impressed by the courage and integrity of the Israeli human rights organisations that came before us, in Geneva and in Amman, Jordan. The young men and women who represent these organisations are extraordinarily courageous. They made a profound impression on me, as a soldier with a background in a business where courage is supposed to be appreciated. Such courage was not demonstrated in Gaza, where avoidance of risk became the tactical criterion for a new army. It is a very troubling phenomenon that military personnel are not permitted to take risk but are permitted to transfer that risk on to non-combatants. It was wonderful and reassuring to meet young Israeli men and women who are committed to human rights. For example, I think of the young soldiers from Breaking the Silence. We attended a meeting in Dublin and heard them speaking. They are now almost uncontactable at this stage. However, a troubling set of circumstances is evolving in Israel. I lived there for a few years. I am a friend of Israel, although I have been described as an anti-Semite, and what is befalling Israel internally is a serious concern for people who have a good wish for the country and the religious tradition that dominates there.

Deputy Costello asked about trade. It is the most perverse thing that the EU has a well enshrined, declared policy on human rights. With one hand it espouses human rights issues internationally and, with the other, it gives the deontas to those who seem to be most abusive of them. If one considers the contradictions in the way the Union behaves, it defies rational thinking. For example, funding for electricity in Gaza was provided by the Union but it has decided to stop it. It has a rational bureaucratic reason for doing that but, to the citizens of Gaza, this is a punishment at this time. When there was an examination of a finding in the Goldstone report in train, the Union decided to pull its funding while, at the same time, offering an additional €17 million to three or four Israeli IT companies that are heavily involved in the defence industry. What do the citizens think of this? It bemuses me. Chris Patten is muted in his comments about this. He said, "Obviously one department of the European Union does not communicate with the other." My sentiments would be a little stronger about this.

With regard to the effect of the refusal to co-operate with our fact finding missions, there is no doubt our inability to enter the territories of Israel and to examine the rocket attacks affected the veracity and thoroughness of our research but that was a penalty Israel had to take on board and she might have been better if she had co-operated with us for her own sake. However, there was no shortage of Israeli citizens to take it upon themselves to come to Amman and Geneva to express their views about the Hamas rocket fire into their areas and we got a full and comprehensive exposition about the stress and consequences of these attacks in Gaza. For example, in our findings, we were unsparing in our criticism of this kind of action by Hamas and other dissident groups. The rockets fired into Gaza in the months prior to the Israeli operation were fired by dissident groups in Gaza other than Hamas, but, nevertheless, they were fired into Israel and everybody knows that any action that constitutes a threat to the territory of Israel will incur a disproportionate response. That was established more or less since 1948, whether we like it or not. Those who fired rockets into Israel knew there would be severe consequences.

Deputy Timmins stated Hamas was targeted but it was not targeted at all. It is extraordinary that Hamas is stronger now than it ever was. It is like Hizbollah in Lebanon in 2006. It was never touched. It is the communities all around. There are Hamas buildings standing in Gaza with all the buildings around them levelled. One of the conspiracy theories going around Gaza about the military action there, which was quoted by Amira Hass, the Israeli journalist and a phenomenally courageous Jewish lady, is that this was a Hamas-Israel co-operative venture. I do not believe that theory but I find it instructive that every time there is a military action in the territories outside Israel, the Israeli army and its protagonists seem to gain strength from those actions. Hamas's popularity rises. Israel's military popularity has risen everywhere.

I refer to Proinsias De Rossa's comments about the findings. My colleagues have had to go back to their various professions but I am retired and I more or less can read and keep myself acquainted with ongoing events. If anything, the Goldstone report was muted in what it found. We could not speculate, as we can only argue points of law but had we given ourselves the opportunity to speculate on the continuation of the blockade, our findings would have been much more critical. We would have gone beyond the question of disproportion and the Dahiya doctrine and we would have asked whether this was an assault on the entire environment of Gaza and if it was, we would have asked what was its ultimate purpose. That is an interesting question. An answer has been offered by some commentators but I will not offer it to the committee.

The Dahiya doctrine is named after a suburb in south Beirut, which I visited after it was destroyed. It was announced publicly by various political leaders in Israel and by various military officers of high rank that, in future, Israel would apply this new doctrine to its enemies and it would be a disproportionate punishment against the population on the basis that any society or community that has within its midst terrorists deserves to be punished in such a way that it would take them a long time to restore their infrastructure and, by this means, communities would learn a lesson about allowing such people to live in their midst.

As an occasional student of counterinsurgency warfare, I believe this idea runs counter to all known principles and rules of good counterinsurgency warfare. No military man I know who has written on the subject would come up with this nonsensical idea. I refer to books by General Petraeus and Colonel Nagl in the US, General Rupert Smith in the UK and Colonel Kilcullen in Australia. All the current doctrine, which is a rehash of what occurred in Ireland in the 1920s, about the principles of counterinsurgency warfare suggests nobody would dare take on a community and think he or she could get away with it. However, that is the Israeli theory and it was augmented by an article by the philosopher Asa Kasher, who argued that selective assassinations should be made legitimate and soldiers who engage in combat against terrorists have no obligation to protect the citizens who reside in the territories where terrorists function and, therefore, they should not be put at risk. It is my understanding that his theory was applied in the case of risk aversion by the Israeli defence forces in Gaza.

Deputy Timmins mentioned prior experience of the Israeli defence forces, the PLO, Hezbollah and Fatah. In the 1980s the dominant military apparatchiks in Lebanon when he and I were there were from the PLO and were not Israeli. They were also extremely dangerous and reckless and disregarded human rights. I am not present to critique the Israeli armed forces alone; I am present to critique the idea that violence is a solution to any problem. The Deputy and I will agree on the basis of our experience as peacekeepers that we have learned one thing in the Irish Army. That is, that the best we can do as soldiers is to contain other people's violence, either on this island or elsewhere, and hopefully to see an ushering in of a diplomatic and political regime that will prevent further violence from taking place.

A question was asked about the attack on the American school. I believe that was the first message to the new President of the United States. The second and third messages relate to the encounter President Obama had with the President of Israel. One of the first installations destroyed by bombing was the American school in Gaza and I believe that was a message, although I may be wrong.

The destruction of the industrial areas, when associated with the destruction of the agricultural areas, is enormously revealing and means this is not a punishment on the population, but the destruction of the infrastructures of life that we understand and accept as part of modern society. As John Ging said to us, it is bombing the citizens of Gaza back 30 or 40 years, making of them the terrorists that the Israeli forces believe them to be in the first instance. I do not know if that is true.

Senator Donohoe asked about procedures with respect to new evidence. That is an interesting question. It would have been nice, perhaps, had we been given the opportunity not alone to come back and correct ourselves should any of our findings been found wanting, but also to come back to affirm or reinforce events we have examined in light of newer evidence. That would have been interesting. However, I believe that would have pushed the Goldstone report into diplomatic unacceptability.

With regard to a solution, the spiral of continuing tit for tat violence is a growth and self-affirming industry. There is a symbiosis between insurgence and the apparatus of the state. I suggest there was a symbiosis of insurgence and the apparatus of the state in certain circumstances in Northern Ireland. People get danger money, risk money and career promotion prospects while insurgents get the trade from illicit black marketeering, and various other things, such as protectionism, begin to develop and emerge. The only people who suffer are the citizens who are not part of either of these structures. For example, a post-operation cast lead review has been carried out by some distinguished academic institutions in Israel. Their conclusion is that the two-state solution is not in Israel's interest, particularly if the two states means the territory of Gaza and the West Bank having to be joined by a land bridge through Israel. That is virtually unacceptable to Israel and may well explain the possibility of the reduction of the territory of Gaza by machine gun fire or other means. There is also a belief among the Palestinian community that a two-state solution would not be in its best interest, because it would turn them into a bantustan and that the ultimate solution is a one-state solution.

The beginning of the idea of a solution to the Middle East problem is the very complex, slow and painful decoupling of the military industrial Knesset apparatus that gains from the physical force option. That is a difficult thing to achieve. It has been suggested that the only means by which this can be achieved is through strong international effort. We are talking about the European Union in this regard, because the United States has difficulties with that option currently. It has been suggested by a number of commentators that the European Union is very strongly placed, at least to exercise leverage, to force some kind of an initiative in that area.

After previous endeavours to bring about a solution to the Middle East problem by previous US Administrations — I think particularly of the Clinton effort — it would be very foolhardy of me as no more than a soldier to offer anything more than just the idea of decoupling one particular event or activity which seems to prevent the other activity, namely, dialogue-related activity. That would be a start, but only a start. I hope I have covered all the issues raised.

Chairman

This has been a very interesting discussion. We are coming to the end of our time. One point has occurred to me and perhaps Mr. Travers will address it. During the period of the intensive suicide bombings that took place throughout Israel, was the international community and its response sufficiently alert and sympathetic to what was happening there? Were any steps taken which might have prevented the necessity of creating the wall and the extension of the settlements that has taken place since? Does Mr. Travers think the wall has impeded the suicide bombers or the extent of the suicide bombing? We are fairly familiar with the extent of it, as it received huge publicity worldwide and was condemned worldwide. However, what was the effectiveness of that condemnation at local level?

Mr. Desmond Travers

When we decided to examine the incidents in Gaza, the mission that was given to us was the redefined mission as quoted by Deputy Costello. We were very anxious to look at events that might have justified the military operation into Gaza, such as the rocket fire. In fact, we thought we would encounter examples of suicide bombings, but there was none. Suicide bombings are particularly atrocious and usually reflect very negatively on the society from which they come. Bombings in the United Kingdom during the IRA campaign reflected ferociously badly on us as a nation. When I meet people internationally, they still come back at me over that. Bombings are also a message of desperation. When young men and women decide to terminate their lives one must ask whether they have been brought to a point of desperation. I do not know. I must be brief and respond that we did not encounter that type of phenomenon. For that reason, I feel that making a political comment about it would be inappropriate.

Chairman

Thank you. That concludes this session. On behalf of the committee I thank Mr. Travers for being with us. We are privileged and honoured to have had him here. His input has been very informative, obviously a result of his good background. I thank committee members for their attention.

The joint committee suspended at 1.50 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri, General Delegation of Palestine. He is very welcome back amongst us. It has been a couple of years since he was last here. Events have moved on and some have been better and some not so good. The purpose of this hearing is in furtherance of the motions passed by the committee in January 2009 on the special trade relationship between the EU and Israel, the implications for potential human rights violations and the need for a review or action to be taken by the European Union as a result of the ostracisation of Gaza. The purpose of the meeting is not to reignite the difficulties — there are sufficient difficulties there. The purpose is to ascertain the facts, obtain better knowledge of the situation and ultimately compile a report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, which we hope will be well balanced and fair, and take into account all of the issues involved, including the history and background, and the present situation. There is consensus among committee members that we must all move forward progressively in a fair-minded fashion.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I should mention that mobile telephones are a source of continued irritation and I ask members to silence them or preferably switch them off because they affect the communication system.

The usual procedure is a ten-minute introduction followed by questions and answers. We take a raft of questions from the members and if necessary we will go back for clarification. I ask Mr. Ajjuri to address the meeting.

Mr. Hikmat Ajjuri

Thank you, Chairman. I hope I will be given more than ten minutes because when I spoke with the clerk of the committee she said you would accept the presentation I have already circulated.

Chairman

That is acceptable.

Mr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I thank the members of the committee for giving me the privilege and honour of addressing the committee today on a very important issue, Israeli violations of the human rights of Palestinians, which means that Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the Euro-Med agreement. Human rights are the freedoms to which all individuals are entitled as human beings. The international system for the protection of human rights is closely associated with international humanitarian law. The four Geneva conventions of 1949 and the two additional protocols of 1977 form the core of international humanitarian law.

There is not the slightest doubt that Israel has continually failed to live up to its obligations under international humanitarian law and is therefore in breach of Article 2 of the Euro-Med agreement. A prime example of this is Israel's economic strangulation of Gaza over many years. On 26 February 2008, Mr. John Holmes, UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, described this as "collective punishment". He told the Security Council:

The effective Israeli isolation of Gaza is not justified, given Israel's continuing obligations to the people of Gaza. It amounts to collective punishment and is contrary to international humanitarian law.

Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention forbids the collective punishment of people under occupation. It states:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

The EU has also described the economic strangulation of Gaza as collective punishment. The former External Relations Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, said on 21 January 2008: "I am against the collective punishment of the people of Gaza".

The former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, told the Dáil on 11 March 2008:

I remain deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza. It is unacceptable that Israel should isolate the people of Gaza and cut off essential supplies in order to exert pressure on them to reject Hamas. I agree with the United Nations that this constitutes collective punishment and is illegal under international humanitarian law.

His successor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin agreed, telling the Dáil on 5 November 2008: "The Government agrees with those who state that the effective isolation of Gaza constitutes collective punishment and is illegal under international humanitarian law."

Judge Goldstone's report states categorically that Israel has engaged in "collective punishment" of the people of Gaza before, during and after Operation Cast Lead. Paragraph 1326 states:

The facts ascertained by the Mission, the conditions resulting from the deliberate actions of the Israeli armed forces and the declared policies of the Israeli Government — as they were presented by its authorized representatives — with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The Mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There is no doubt that Israel is guilty of imposing collective punishment on the people of Gaza over many years and is therefore in breach of Article 2 of the agreement.

Paragraph 92 from Judge Goldstone's report, states:

In the West Bank, Israel has long imposed a system of movement restrictions. Movement is restricted by a combination of physical obstacles such as roadblocks, checkpoints and the Wall, but also through administrative measures such as identity cards, permits, assigned residence, laws on family reunification, and policies on the right to enter from abroad and the right of return for refugees. Palestinians are denied access to areas expropriated for the building of the Wall and its infrastructure, for use by settlements, buffer zones, military bases and military training zones, and the roads built to connect these places. Many of these roads are "Israeli only" and forbidden for Palestinian use. Tens of thousands of Palestinians today are subject to a "travel ban" imposed by Israel, preventing them from travelling abroad. A number of witnesses and experts invited by the Mission to meet in Amman and participate in the hearings in Geneva could not meet with the Mission due to this travel ban.

In additions, Israel, the occupying power, continues to build settlements on Palestinian land in a grave breach of article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from transferring its citizens into the territory it occupies. It continues to build settlements, despite UN Security Council demands in resolutions 446, 452 and 465 that it cease building and remove the existing ones. It also maintains its annexation of East Jerusalem contrary to UN Security Council demands in resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 476 and 478 that it reverses this annexation. Up to now, Israel has built more than 132 illegal settlements and more than 100 outposts, on occupied Palestinian Territories, housing illegally 500,000 Jewish settlers.

Benefiting from a lack of action by the international community against these Israeli illegal practices, Israel continues to survive by terrorising its neighbours and the people under its occupation. In 2006 it launched two offensives, one against Lebanon and the other against Gaza, resulting in horrendous damage to the civilian infrastructure and the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in both places. In the hope of avoiding these and previous offensives the Palestinian Authority has constantly appealed for the Security Council's engagement and called upon it to shoulder its responsibility, as I am appealing to the joint committee today.

The Arab initiative endorsed by all Arab countries at their summit in Beirut in 2002 is still on the table. It calls for the normalisation of relations with Israel in return for its withdrawal from the Arab territories it conquered by force in 1967. The lack of a favourable response from the Security Council has encouraged Israel to ignore this initiative and more than 30 Security Council resolutions that require action by it alone. It has also encouraged Israel to ignore the ruling on the wall by the International Court of Justice in July 2004. Had Israel responded favourably to the initiative, as would have been expected from a democratic state, a Palestinian state would have been declared by now side by side with the state of Israel.

Profiting from the unhealthy environment of international silence and inaction, on 27 December 2008 Israel launched its most immoral military offensive, Operation Cast Lead, unleashing its military might for 22 days on the defenceless population on the Gaza Strip, killing more than 1,400 and injuring more than 5,000, half of whom were women and children. This operation was not merely a military offensive against civilians, impoverished victims of occupation and siege over four decades, it was an ongoing assault on international humanitarian law. Victims were not only trapped, traumatised and terrorised, with the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza, but were also deprived of the protection accorded to civilian persons under international humanitarian law.

The disproportionality of Operation Cast Lead was reflected in the number of fatalities — 100 Palestinians for each Israeli killed — in the explosives used — 1 kg to 1,000 kg — and in the use of internationally illegal weapons such as depleted uranium and white phosphorus by Israel. It was also reflected in the gruesome images, shown daily on our television screens, of this most brutal aggression ever conducted by a democratic state. This utter disproportionality transformed Gaza from a large prison into an abattoir.

Israel's abandonment of attempts to distinguish between civilians and combatants gave rise to what amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. A report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on 3 February 2010 stated:

The Israeli defence forces chose to risk civilians in Gaza in order to protect its soldiers during Operation Cast Lead, a high ranking Israeli military officer told the British daily The Independent on Wednesday. The IDF officer claimed the traditional ’means and intentions’ engagement principle — stating that a suspect must have both a weapon and a visible intent to use it before being fired at — was discarded during Israel’s Gaza incursion in late 2008 and early 2009.

Colonel Daniel Reisner, the former head of the legal department of the Israeli army, argues:

If you do something for long enough the world will accept it. The whole international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries ... International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassinations thesis and we had to push it.

Judge Goldstone and his team interpreted their mandate as requiring them to place the civilian population of the region at the centre of their concerns regarding violations of international law. They concluded that Israel's offensive against Gaza during Operation Cast Lead was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population". Accordingly, they found Israel, the occupying power, guilty of perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In Gaza the civilian population continues to suffer from the unlawful collective punishment measures being imposed by Israel, the occupying power. The repercussions of Operation Cast Lead which has left approximately 100,000 Palestinians homeless to this day shocked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, during his most recent visit to Gaza. He argued in his article published in The New York Times on 4 March 2010, “What I witnessed in Gaza, amidst all the rubble and devastation still so evident from last year’s conflict, was a population traumatized and reduced to poverty by an unjust and completely counterproductive blockade.” He added: “I view the current conditions prevailing for the ordinary population as inhumane and utterly unacceptable, in terms of accepted international standards of human rights.”

The Taoiseach, speaking to the press on 31 May 2010, the day of the Israeli piracy against the Gaza aid flotilla, stated:

The reason why this has happened is that there is a blockade taking place at the moment in respect of humanitarian assistance being provided to the people of Gaza. I believe that that is in violation of International law.

My leadership and I are committed to non-violent means to bring to an end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, one cannot ignore the fact that in the eight years before Operation Cast Lead the so-called Hamas rockets killed 20 Israelis, while in retaliation to this unfortunate loss of Israeli lives, Israel killed more than 3,500 Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of whom were non-combatant civilians. Furthermore, the indiscriminate nature of the Israeli offensive on Gaza and the great losses prove that the real targets of the Israelis are not extremists or their weapons but the will and resolve of all Palestinians in the hope of imposing a unilateral humiliating settlement on them. These Israeli practices are not a reflection of Jewish values but of the Zionist strategy of ethnic cleansing of Palestine since 1948. Ilan Pappé, a renowned Israeli historian with whom members are familiar, argued in an article published on 2 January 2009: "We have to try and explain, not only to the world but also to the Israelis themselves, that Zionism is an ideology that endorses ethnic cleansing, occupation and now massive massacres."

To a large extent, the shameful and unacceptable silence of world leaders in the face of the Israeli siege of Gaza, war crimes and the latest act of piracy contributes to the continued injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people. Since the early 1990s, world leaders have distanced themselves from attempting to resolve the crisis and called on both sides to settle their differences on their own, as if this were a fight between equal contenders rather than a struggle between a powerful, ruthless occupying power and the people it occupies by military means. This is in spite of the fact that the leaders in question know very well that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle constitutes a real threat to world peace and stability. Unless we reach a just and durable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians by transforming the vision of two states into a reality, the achievement of global peace and security will remain a remote possibility. I emphasise that the rules of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle need to be changed. I very much doubt that bilateral negotiations will ever yield the peace and security Israelis and Palestinians in the Holy Land badly need unless determined international pressure is exerted on Israel.

Guided by the aforementioned narrative and based on the European vision on national interests and foreign policy, as expressed by the former EU High Representative, Mr. Javier Solana, on 7 October 2008 when he stated, "foreign policy which is not informed by our values is neither possible nor acceptable," I hope members will agree with me that Israel is in grave breach of Article 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement. I anticipate the joint committee will decide accordingly.

Chairman

As Deputy Tuffy must leave to attend another meeting, she may make the first contribution.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to ask a question at this stage. As I am a member of a committee which is dealing with legislation, I cannot remain here.

I thank Mr. Ajjuri for his presentation. I oppose the blockade of Gaza and believe it should be lifted. In so doing, the issues pertaining to the security of Israel need to be addressed.

I was appalled by Operation Cast Lead last year and the resulting deaths of civilians, including children. I was also appalled by what had occurred on the flotilla. I did not necessarily believe sending a flotilla to Gaza was the correct approach to adopt but believed the deaths were terrible. The matter needs to be investigated properly. Terrible atrocities have been perpetrated by both the Israelis and the Palestinians during the conflict.

I commend the work of President Abbas who has done very well in trying to put in place a peace process during the years. The way in which Mr. Ajjuri uses the term "Zionism" is wrong. If it means one supports the state of Israel, the Palestinian Authority shares common ground in that regard. The term is used in a derogatory way.

Mr. Ajjuri discusses in his paper the question of whether Israel's human rights obligations have been dishonoured. Does he believe the Euromed agreement should be suspended? Last year, after the operation in Gaza, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad corresponded in writing with the European Union asking that relations under the agreement not be upgraded until certain developments had taken place. The committee is asking whether the agreement should be suspended. What is the view of the Palestinian Authority?

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank Mr. Ajjuri for his presentation. It seems his response to the motion we tabled on whether there have been violations of Article 2 of the Euromed agreement by Israel is a resounding "yes". I ask him to pursue Deputy Tuffy's question on the implications of a finding by the committee that there have been violations. What would be the consequences of such a finding, bearing in mind that Article 2 is part and parcel of the Euromed agreement? What is the attitude of the Palestinians to trade relations, boycotts and sanctions?

What is Mr. Ajjuri's view on the contention that Israel is entitled to protect itself in that it has been under constant attack by Hamas, particularly in the south, even prior to the invasion in September 2008? I am sure we will hear this from the Israeli ambassador.

Mr. Ajjuri has stated he very much doubts that bilateral negotiations will ever yield the peace and security Israelis and Palestinians in the Holy Land badly need unless determined international pressure is exerted on Israel. Will he expand on this and state what international pressures he is talking about?

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome Mr. Ajjuri and thank him for his detailed presentation. In our work today we can nail the matter down easily. It is a question of the abuse of human rights, as other speakers have said. While Mr. Ajjuri's presentation was good, it took a 30,000 ft view of events on the ground. To decide conclusively that there has been an abuse of human rights, it would be helpful if Mr. Ajjuri could describe some individual cases. Perhaps he does not have the facts available to him today. If not, perhaps he will revert to members. If we are to determine that Israel has been involved in a blatant abuse of human rights, we need some specific examples.

I acknowledge Mr. Ajjuri's remarks on the lack of proportionality. He states clearly that the response of Operation Cast Lead was entirely disproportionate to the challenge or level of aggression presented. He describes the blockade as an act of collective punishment, which it clearly is. That would lead to a finding of an abuse of human rights. With the deaths of so many on the ground by the occupying force, as it was at the time, it should be possible to identify beyond doubt actions that clearly demonstrate malicious intent and disregard for the basic principles of human rights as laid down in various conventions. Will Mr. Ajjuri help us by way of commentary or apprising us of information available to him, now or on another date, in order that we will be able to cite specific examples? This may not have been his brief today. His paper is helpful overall, but some reliable examples would help us in making our determination.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I welcome the ambassador, Mr. Ajjuri. I have two questions, the first of which is on some of the comments made on page 5 of his submission. He outlines his view that Israel has ignored attempts and statements by the international community with a view to restraining Israeli actions or effecting change. Does Mr. Ajjuri believe a change to the Euromed agreement would produce a different result than previous statements or contributions by the international community on this issue?

My second question is related. Mr. Ajjuri states world leaders have distanced themselves from attempting to resolve the crisis since the early 1990s. I would like to hear him reflect on this. It strikes me that at different times in the past 15 or 20 years there has been considerable engagement by the international community with the crisis. Attempts have been made to try to make a positive contribution. I found the severity of Mr. Ajjuri's comment on the attempts made interesting. Why was it merited?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Gabhaim buíochas leis an ambasadóir as ucht an méid a dúirt sé. My question takes as given the human rights abuses perpetrated by Israel in Gaza. Mr. Ajjuri's position is well put in his short submission. Could the ambassador please supply the committee with a more detailed outline of the legal and illegal settlements in the West Bank, their extent in recent years, the land grab to do with the building of the wall, and the impact of the supposed security wall in terms of the abuse of the human rights of those living on one side of it or the other. We will also be interested in hearing about the economic stranglehold Israel has on other parts of Palestine, apart from Gaza; the effects of the wall and various Israeli policies on trade, administration and the targeting of Palestinian citizens in terms of normal human discourse. He might have some of the figures to hand on the number of settlements and the amount of land that has been illegally seized to facilitate them. If not, he might be able to supply those figures to the committee afterwards.

We would like to know the scale of the wall, its length and the amount of land that has been sanitised, supposedly on security grounds, on both sides. Perhaps he could detail how it has been allowed to meander through different Palestinian territories and how it has divided towns from their natural hinterlands.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I join the Chairman in warmly welcoming His Excellency, Dr. Ajjuri, and thank him for his presentation. Although Dr. Ajjuri may be familiar with the context, it bears repeating. He will be aware that the association agreement between the European Union and Israel takes place within the Barcelona Process, as I understand it. This is a neighbourhood process between the EU and countries around the Mediterranean basin, and in another way in its external action programme. It is a programme whereby over the years the EU enters into agreements with third party countries for better and closer co-operation, involving everything from culture to trade, the exchange of information and so on.

As is obvious from the Lisbon treaty, which contains the UN Charter of Fundamental Rights, the issue of human rights is absolutely central to the thinking behind the European Union concept. It was in that context that this committee decided to explore the issue of whether there has been a breach of the EU-Israel association agreement, which is as much about looking at Europe as it is about Israel. Part of our work here is to examine the standards of the European Union internally to elicit what standards it is maintaining. Equally, it could be some other country. If, say, the European Union had an association agreement with any other country and there were violations of human rights there, then that would be an issue for this committee. The Chairman might agree with me that it is not particularly Israel that we are focusing on. However, Israel just happens to be one of the few countries with which the European Union has this type of formalised association agreement. It is in that context that we are examining this. Internally the European Union is taking very seriously the issue of human rights and whether Israel is in breach of such rights, which has a bearing on article 2 of the that association agreement.

I know this is not contained in his submission, but from his knowledge of the situation, will Dr. Ajjuri give the view of the Palestinian Government and the Palestinian people on the extent to which the European Union takes the issue of human rights seriously? I believe Dr. Ajjuri will acknowledge that the European Union is the largest provider of foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority. Without putting words in his mouth, will he articulate the internal view in the Palestinian territories as to how seriously the European Union is taking the issue of human rights?

Deputy Alan Shatter

There is a very good letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated April 2010, which was circulated previously, dealing with the EU-Israel association agreement, and I am interested in Dr. Ajjuri's view. My colleague, with his first question, asked whether the Palestinian Authority, which he represents in this State, favoured suspending Israel from the EU-Israel agreement. In fact this is not an EU-Israel association agreement, but rather a Mediterranean agreement, involving Mediterranean countries, and so it is being wrongly described.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, says in the context of the EU-Israeli agreement as part of the Mediterranean agreement that one of the critical elements of the approach in the agreement is "the establishment of formal dialogue on political and human rights issues". He says this is an element which partner states are very slow to accept when negotiating these agreements — and the political and human rights provisions of the agreements establish that these are areas of mutual concern for discussion between the two sides, which counters the traditional defence that these are matters of an entirely domestic nature.

He says: "The primary practical effect of suspending the association agreement with any partner would be to suspend these elements of critical interest to the EU, while means would still have to be found for practical co-operation." Essentially the Minister is saying that it is counter-productive to suspend this agreement with regard to Israel. Does Dr. Ajjuri agree with that, and does the Palestinian Authority agree with that, as opposed to Dr. Ajjuri?

The Minister makes the point in his letter that no Irish Government has supported a policy of boycotts or sanctions against Israel. As a small trading country which makes its way in the world by selling its products and services abroad, Ireland is always cautious about proposals to subordinate trade policies to political objectives. I shall conclude by quoting this sentence: "The list of countries around the world with whom we might have serious human rights concerns is not a short one."

He quite clearly makes the point that this State cannot achieve a great deal if we are having a human rights argument with any other state, in a climate of such suspensions. Perhaps Dr. Ajjuri will tell me whether he agrees with the Minister on that.

I want to ask quickly a number of other questions that I am very curious about. In his presentation, Dr. Ajjuri says nothing, really, about Hamas. It is a depressingly usual presentation of a nature we have heard on many occasions in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Could he say whether the Palestinian Authority has any concern about the extent to which Hamas is violating the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza? Could he confirm what President Abbas informed me when I last met him that since Hamas took over Gaza, it has murdered more than 700 people? Is that a human rights concern?

Could he also advise this committee about two recent events that took place in Gaza, at a time when public attention focused on the flotilla? The first was on 30 May 2010 when a massed group of individuals went into a UN-secured building and destroyed a large number of items that had come into Gaza for summer holiday camps run by UNRA for children there. They left a death threat note with regard to John Ging. Is that a matter of concern and what has the Palestinian Authority said about it? On 31 May, four independent Palestinian human rights organisations operating in Gaza had their offices raided by Hamas, documentation and computers removed and the offices closed down. Is Dr. Ajjuri concerned about that, and what has the Palestinian Authority said about it? Where do matters currently stand? I am concerned that real progress be made in the peace process. A major difficulty is the collapse of relationships entirely between the PA and Hamas. Egypt has been trying to resolve it through discussions. Where do relationships stand between Fatah and Hamas at this stage? In the context of any negotiated peace process, is it still the case that Hamas is calling on Fatah to terminate any discussions with the Israeli side and that members of Fatah have their lives under threat if they enter into some negotiation with the Israeli side? Why has President Abbas not visited Gaza in the past year and a half?

In what way does Dr. Ajjuri perceive the presentation he made to the committee today as constructively contributing to the peace process? As someone who has been publicly critical of the manner in which the Israeli blockade on Gaza has operated, does he regard the announced changes on Israeli policy on Gaza as a positive development? Would he agree with me that it is of the utmost importance that goods for commercial and domestic purposes be allowed into Gaza? Would he accept that there is a problem with materials going directly into Gaza through the harbour because of Iran's meddling in the region? Can he explain the Palestinian Authority's view of the support given by Iran to Hamas and the difficulties created by the furnishing of arms by Iran to Hamas? In responding to that, perhaps Dr. Ajjuri might give the view of the Palestinian Authority as opposed to his own perspective, as he is representing the Palestinian Authority in this State.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Perhaps we need to change the terms of reference of the meeting if we are to get all those answers.

Mr. Prionsias De Rossa, MEP

I welcome Dr. Ajjuri to the committee. I am the chair of the European Parliament's delegation to the PLC. One of the things that concerns me is the fact that members of the PLC are imprisoned by Israel in retaliation for the capture of the young Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who has now being held for almost four years. Currently, 11 members of the PLC are in Israeli jails and I wonder what action the Palestinian Authority has taken in respect of the release of these prisoners and the young Israeli soldier, who is being held without access to his family or to bodies such as the International Red Cross. That is a serious breach of his rights, just as the imprisonment of members of the PLC is a serious breach of their rights as elected representatives.

We are addressing the Mediterranean association agreement between the EU and Israel and the human rights aspect to its operation. The Israeli authorities recently decided to expel four members of the PLC from East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Israel and has been annexed by Israel. The annexation is not recognised by the European Union or the UN. What steps have been taken to protest that breach of human rights? The authorities in West Jerusalem made a decision to demolish 22 Palestinian houses in the illegally annexed area of East Jerusalem, and 103 houses were demolished last year. At the same time, the number of illegal settlements are increasing in East Jerusalem. Is it the view of the Palestinian Authority that these demolitions are breaches of human rights? What steps will be taken to deal with them?

As a citizen of Europe and of this State, I am concerned about the law currently going through the Knesset that is intended to restrict the activities of Israeli non-governmental organisations that are active on human rights. It is a law that intends to prevent any NGO from dealing with international bodies. If representatives of such NGOs gave evidence to this committee, they would be treated as traitors to Israel under this law. Does that come under the terms of the association agreement? The agreement does not specify simply that Israel may not interfere with the human rights of Palestinians, but that it may not interfere with human rights in general. That obviously applies to Israeli human rights as well.

We had an interesting presentation this morning by Colonel Travers, who was one of the three people who participated in the Goldstone report. One of the findings of the report was that not only was there prima facie evidence for war crimes carried out by Israeli forces, but also by Palestinian forces in Gaza. There was a demand that the Palestinian authorities establish an independent credible inquiry into the war in Gaza. Has the PA such an inquiry? Does Dr. Ajjuri know if the Hamas authorities set up such an inquiry in Gaza?

Chairman

We have about ten minutes left because we were late starting, so we will do our best to accommodate everybody. Dr. Ajjuri and the Israeli ambassador sat down at that very bench in public session for the very first time in this country two years ago. That was a very constructive debate and the tone of the debate at the time was about trying to ascertain the best means to achieve common ground, with a view to achieving a settlement. The debate that took place at the time was about what had occurred in the past, the ongoing situation and the comparison with the situation here.

People have often told us since then that the situation in the middle-east is different. We have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that there are certain similarities. The basis for any settlement ultimately has to be recognition by each party of the other's existence and the right to exist. The two propositions are similar but not common. What is Mr. Ajjuri's response to the notion that some neighbouring countries have expressed the wish to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth, and to the supply of ammunition and armaments to various groups to create security problems within Israel? Notwithstanding all of that, it was clearly the consensus of the committee on the previous occasion and remains so that two wrongs do not make a right and a tit for tat situation that goes on indefinitely will lead to more bloodshed, no resolution and no understanding of each other's position. I ask Mr. Ajjuri to keep that in mind when he replies.

Mr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I would need two days to answer the questions but I will try to be as precise and constructive as possible. I will not get into details because while Deputy Shatter has shifted the issue to Hamas, I was asked to speak on Israel's breaches, not Hamas' breaches. I wish Hamas had been mentioned in the letter sent to me by the committee so I could have come with some figures for members. I do not want to waste time talking about Hamas because I would rather keep Hamas as a Palestinian issue. I accept that President Abbas has not gone to Gaza since Hamas took over but he is now serious on going to Gaza and he might surprise everyone by doing that shortly, although I cannot predict the exact time.

The difficult question here is whether the committee wants me to state whether to expel Israel or act against its practices. I do not believe any of the committee members present doubts that Israel abused human rights. I wish to read Article 2 of the Euro-Med agreement and members can then decide if what I stated in my presentation was a clear breach of this article or not. Article 2 states: "Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement." This is very clear. I do not need to explain what this article means and whether Israel is in breach.

I gave examples and quoted the highest authority in this country to explain that Israel breaches international law and human rights. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the EU, the United Nations and some of the committee members have visited Gaza and have seen what has happened there recently. Operation Cast Lead happened in front of all of us. Children have been killed, soldiers in Israel admitted they killed innocent people in cold blood, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, the bombing of United Nations schools when the Israelis were informed these schools were sheltering children — I do not know what other examples the committee needs.

In the Haaretz newspaper today, Amira Hass reports on speaking with the Gazans and agrees with what I am telling the committee. There was a very good article in The Irish Times yesterday by the director of Trócaire entitled, “Gazans trapped in an open-air prison and abject poverty”. I hope the Chairman refers to this record because it is first-hand information. I ask all members to read this article which was published yesterday.

The point is not whether to expel Israel. We have written to the 31 countries in recent months to ask them not to offer Israel access to the OECD not because we hate Israel or want to wipe it off the map, but because we want Israel to be squeezed and to be held to account for what it is doing and all the atrocities against the Palestinians over the past three or four years. We know what they are doing. They are letting coriander, crisps and snacks into Gaza when they have destroyed the social and economic life of 1.5 million people in Gaza. Unless this siege is completely ended, there will be no hope for stability and peace in the region.

We, the Palestinian Authority, recognise explicitly the right of the State of Israel to exist on the 1967 borders. All of the 22 Arab countries and another 35 Muslim which have been added lately endorse the Arab initiative, which tells the world they are willing to normalise the relationship with Israel in return for the land it took by force in 1967. This has been to no avail, however, and we have never received any favourable response for that offer. Some 57 countries with 1.5 billion Muslims are willing to recognise and normalise relations with the State of Israel in return for the 22% of historic Palestine. Israel was granted 56% of Palestine in 1947 when it came into being. Within a month or two, it declared itself on 78% of Palestine, which has created a major problem for us, namely, the refugee problem. We have 5 million refugees and we do not know how to sort out the problem. It is all about the making of Israel.

We have been trying with Israel since 1991 and the best we have achieved is the Oslo agreement. Since Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated, and he was assassinated because he was the only decent, serious Israeli politician who could deliver on this, everything has gone upside down. Mr. Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister, was elected in 1996 on a manifesto stating that the Oslo agreement has to be destroyed because it aims at the destruction of the State of Israel. Now, people expect us to sit face to face with this man and reach an agreement. For God's sake, how are we going to achieve this?

This is what I meant when I said we need international pressure. It is obvious we need a credible third party. Thank God there is now some guy called Obama; at least he is more credible and decent than his predecessor. We are hoping he will be able to achieve what he promised us and what he promised the Israelis. We are in a very difficult situation. We are still in proximity talks as, unfortunately, we have shifted from direct to indirect talks, although the beauty of indirect talks is that there is someone there watching us who can tell the world who is wrong and who is right. We welcome the role of the Quartet because we hope it will create another player in the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians because it was impossible when all the cards were in the hands of the White House. We would also love to see more of the EU. It is not a question of us wanting to suspend Israel as we cannot tell the Europeans what to do. This is their decision, which we respect.

Deputy Mulcahy stated that the EU is a major contributor, which is true — without the EU, we could not have survived. However, 80% of people in Gaza are now dependent on aid. What do people expect of this region? How is it going to survive? Israel has destroyed our economy in Gaza and was about to destroy our economy in the West Bank with its checkpoints. The Israeli ambassador stated that the economy there is progressing and that we are doing very well economically but that is because all the money comes from outside.

Chairman

I am loath to interrupt Mr. Ajjuri, but I must remind him and members that the Minister is scheduled to address the meeting in one hour. I must, therefore, bring this part of our discussion to an end. If Mr. Ajjuri wishes to make any further points, he should refer to them in writing to the committee.

Mr. Hikmat Ajjuri

Likewise, if members wish to write to me with questions on certain issues, I will be more than happy to respond. All we are seeking is the establishment of a two-state solution and we wanted to see it yesterday, not tomorrow. All we need is our own state on 22% of what was our land historically. When that is done, we will be the first to establish a relationship with Israel and we will fight on its side. We want the committee to exert pressure on Israel because the Israeli Government is arrogant. One Israeli Minister asked recently why Israel should have to surrender or concede when there was no pressure on it to do so. I hope my message has been received, that we have nothing against Israelis or Jews, but we have everything against Israeli politicians who were accused in 1979 by the former United States President Jimmy Carter of being the obstacles to peace.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Mr. Ajjuri managed not to answer a single question I asked——

Chairman

I cannot allow any more time.

Deputy Alan Shatter

——in what has been an appallingly evasive presentation to the committee.

Chairman

I cannot allow this part of the meeting to take up any more time.

Deputy Alan Shatter

That shows the uselessness of these meetings.

Chairman

We will suspend the sitting for a few minutes to allow the next speaker to enter.

Mr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I am sorry ——

Chairman

I apologise to Mr. Ajjuri, but this part of the meeting is now over.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Mr. Ajjuri talked about Gaza without even mentioning Hamas.

Chairman

I am trying to help members, rather than hinder them. We must suspend the sitting.

Sitting suspended at 3.42 p.m. and resumed at 3.45 p.m.

Chairman

We are somewhat late in beginning the third session which was due to begin at 3.30 p.m. and is scheduled to end at 4.30 p.m. However, the Minister who is due to speak at 4.30 p.m. is willing to lose his first ten minutes or so in order to accommodate the committee.

I am delighted to welcome the Israeli ambassador, Dr. Zion Evrony, who has been with us before. As I reminded Mr. Ajjuri, he and Dr. Evrony sat in this very room two years ago to discuss the same issues. Developments in the region since have not been conducive to peace and a resolution of differences, but we remain ever hopeful. The purpose of this exercise is to endeavour to improve rather than aggravate the situation. Members of this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs visited the region last year and a report was subsequently published and laid before the Houses of Parliament. That report generated considerable discussion.

I draw Dr. Evrony's attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses appearing before the committee are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are further directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings may be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity, either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Dr. Evrony to make his presentation, after which there will be a question and answer session. We will follow the usual procedure, whereby the witness will be asked to deal with a tranche of questions together. I remind Dr. Evrony and members that we must finish within the given time.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I appreciate the opportunity to address the joint committee in order to clarify Israel's position. Answering the allegations, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods made against Israel recently would require a day-long seminar. Therefore, I have decided to focus on some of the major misconceptions I encounter regarding Israel and the Palestinians, Israel's actions in Gaza, the issue of human rights and the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean association agreement.

There is the mistaken belief — the first misconception — that Israelis are foreigners in a land that is not theirs. The truth is that the land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people and we can claim an uninterrupted history and unique bond to the land for thousands of years. There has been a Jewish presence in the land of Israel since biblical times, long before the first Arabs arrived there in the 7th century as conquerors. The establishment of the modern state of Israel is based on morality, historical justice, international legality and the consensus of the international community. One of the lessons of 20th century history is that the Jewish people need a country for which they do not need a visa.

The second misconception concerns the root cause of the Middle East conflict. The heart of the conflict has never been the "occupation" or settlements but rather the refusal of Israel's enemies to recognise its right to live in peace and security. At the very start of its existence Israel was invaded by five Arab armies that threatened to annihilate it. Several times since it has been forced to fight wars in self-defence and defend itself against relentless campaigns of terrorism. Until 1967 there were no so-called "Occupied Territories" and no settlements, but was there peace? The answer is "No". The third misconception, a falsehood that is repeated by the anti-Israel lobby in Ireland, is that Israel is not interested in peace with the Palestinian people but rather wishes to rule over and oppress them.

The historical facts are that Israel has shown, time after time, its readiness to compromise, to share the land, to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and to make painful concessions and sacrifices for the sake of peace. However, it cannot and will not compromise on its vital security interests.

In 1947, preceding the foundation of the state, we showed our willingness for compromise by accepting the two-state solution prescribed by UN General Assembly Resolution 181. The Arab response was invasion by five armies and a war in which we lost 1% of our population. In 1979, for the sake of peace we gave to Egypt the Sinai, an area three times the size of Israel with oil fields and airbases, and evacuated 28 Jewish settlements there. All this was for the sake of peace. If members check the two starting positions at Oslo in 1993, they will note that whereas the Israeli position has consistently evolved and progressed, the Palestinian position has not moved one inch.

In Lebanon in 2000, we withdrew to the internationally recognised borders. We achieved peace with Jordan and adjusted border lines. Members should not forget, and this is according to the memoirs not of Israelis but of other participants in the negotiations at the Camp David-Taba talks in 2000-01, offers were made by Prime Minister Barak to create a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and most of the West Bank. The offers were rejected by Chairman Arafat who instead, by his own admission, orchestrated the second intifada. During the next eight years of terrorist violence, 1,185 Israeli citizens, including 125 children, were killed. Many of these deaths were caused by Hamas suicide bombers infiltrating Israel from Gaza. Therefore, the practice of some Members of this House of only counting the number of Israelis killed directly by rockets is misleading. In August 2005, to show its readiness again to make painful concessions for peace, Israel evacuated all Jewish settlers and all of its military installations there, only to be confronted with more terror attacks. The people of Gaza are not our enemies. It is the Hamas terrorist regime that now rules Gaza that has made it clear that it has no interest in a peaceful relationship with Israel.

This brings me to yet another misconception, namely, the very nature of Hamas. To engage in a meaningful way with this joint committee, it would be useful to clarify the nature of Hamas. Many seem to regard Hamas as a national liberation movement. In reality, rather than being a movement to advance the national interests of the Palestinian people, Hamas is a splinter group that broke away from the main Palestinian leadership. No peace process, as people here should be aware, can be sustained if violent splinter groups choose to oppose peace. Hamas aims to turn all the lands of present-day Israel, the West Bank and Gaza into an Islamic state that will form part of a new Islamic empire. The Irish people should know exactly what this organisation stands for. Its policy is made clear in its charter, excerpts of which we distributed to this joint committee. It is based on an extreme Islamist ideology. The preface of the charter is unequivocal about Israel and states "Israel ... will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors". Article 11 goes on to explain the reason it refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist. It defines the whole land of Israel and the Palestinian Territories as an Islamic waqf, which means trust territory, consecrated for future Muslim generations. This is the real obstacle to peace now. Article 13 of the Hamas charter states “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad”, which means holy war. Therein lies the reason Hamas refuses to renounce the use of violence.

The implementation of this policy can be seen clearly in the actions of Hamas. Had it been genuinely interested in creating a better reality for the Palestinian people, it would have taken the opportunity of Israel's disengagement to do so, as a step towards the realisation of the two-state solution. Shortly after the disengagement, Hamas took power in Gaza. A year later, it seized complete control of Gaza, violently eliminated the opposition, killed hundreds of fellow Palestinians, turned Gaza into a base for terror and escalated its war against Israel in the form of continual rocket attacks. Ten thousand rockets were launched against the civilian population of southern Israel. The range of the attacks increased to include large cities in the south, so that nearly 1 million Israeli men, women and children were being terrorised and traumatised daily, their homes, schools and businesses destroyed and their lives disrupted.

I am aware that some members of this committee view the impact of these attacks as minimal because the number of deaths has been low. However, only good luck and an efficient system of warnings and shelters in Israeli communities have prevented heavy civilian casualties. Sadly, it appears that much of the interpretation of the conflict is dictated by trying to equate the numbers of casualties on either side. I remind the committee that in combating Hamas, we also are fighting Europe's war against global terrorism. Allow me to briefly quote the former Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, who last week stated:

Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; ... a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. ... For Western countries to side with those who question Israel's legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel's vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than ... to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Let me now address the reality of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is yet another issue around which there are many misconceptions and misinformation. Gaza confronts Israel with a difficult dilemma, one that I had hoped Irish parliamentarians and media commentators would try to understand. That dilemma comes from the need to maintain a balance between fighting terrorism, protecting Israeli civilians from rocket attacks and upholding human rights. On the one hand, we must allow the supply of food and other essential materials into Gaza to ensure that unnecessary suffering is not caused to the civilians there. On the other hand, we must maintain exclusions on the entry of war material into Gaza that can be used to build the infrastructure of terrorism.

Every week, 15,000 tonnes of aid materials are transferred to Gaza through the land crossings. These items are channelled through aid organisations. Israel also supplies Gaza with electricity, gas and fuel. During 2009, more than 10,000 Palestinian patients from Gaza were treated in Israeli hospitals. This week, the Government of Israel decided to further liberalise the system by which goods enter Gaza, for the benefit of Gaza's population and will implement the following measures as quickly as possible. A list of items not permitted into Gaza that is limited to weapons and war materiel, including problematic dual-use items, will be published. All items not on this list will be permitted to enter Gaza. The inflow of dual-use construction materials for Palestinian Authority projects, such as schools, health facilities, water, sanitation, etc., that are under international supervision and for housing projects will be enabled and expanded. Operations at the operating land crossings will be expanded, thereby enabling the processing of a significantly greater volume of goods and the expansion of economic activity. When security concerns are fully addressed, additional land crossings will be opened. As conditions improve, Israel will consider additional ways to facilitate the movement of people to and from Gaza. Israel will continue to facilitate the swift inspection and delivery of goods bound for Gaza through the port of Ashdod.

In the meantime, Israel must continue to prevent the flow into and out of Gaza of terrorist operatives, weapons, war material and dual use items that enhance the military capability of Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza. If Hamas stops its terrorism, stops firing missiles at Israel and releases Gilad Shalit, there will be no more need for the closure of Gaza.

The sixth misconception is that elements of the Northern Ireland peace process are easily transferable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sadly, this is not so. While there are some similarities between these two complex and protracted conflicts and some lessons can be learned, it is a dangerous exercise to conclude that they are the same, given their largely different historical, geopolitical and cultural circumstances. One of the main differences between Hamas and the IRA is the role played by religion in their ideologies. The ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, that of a radical version of Islam that is not open to influence or change. I am frequently told that we must talk to our enemies and not our friends, just as the Irish and the British talked to the IRA. To suggest this is to forget what actually occurred in the Northern Irish peace process. The key point is that one talks to one's enemies if they promise to give up trying to kill one. In Northern Ireland, it was necessary for the IRA to sign up to the Mitchell principles in order to enter the negotiations that led to the Belfast Agreement. This involved six conditions, including the commitment to abandon the use of violence to achieve political aims.

As has been stated many times, the EU, US, UN and Russia have agreed on the three conditions necessary for Hamas to join in peace negotiations. In the meantime, it seems all too evident that Hamas is not being held accountable for its human rights abuses. Instead, Israel is seen as the only party obliged to respect human rights. The fact is that Israel operates under the rule of law. Its record on human rights compares favourably with that of other Western countries facing comparable dangers. The Israeli Supreme Court has challenged the Government and the military numerous times. As a protection for their human rights, the Palestinians have access to the Israeli Supreme Court, which has played a key role in maintaining the appropriate balance between security and liberty. It has even protected the rights of Palestinians at the risk to Israeli civilians and soldiers. I will cite the former and distinguished president of our Supreme Court, Chief Justice Aharon Barak, who stated: "The struggle against terrorism is not conducted outside the law, but within the law, using tools that the law makes available to a democratic state".

Whenever one is quick to criticise Israel, a small democracy, one must also hold the Palestinians accountable for incitement against Israel, and Hamas accountable for the killing of political opponents, the torture and murder of alleged collaborators, not changing its charter, not renouncing terrorism, not stopping the firing of rockets on Israeli civilians, not releasing Gilad Shalit and, above all, not accepting the conflict's ultimate solution, the two-state solution.

From previous meetings with this committee, I recall that some members admit to holding Israel to a higher moral code of conduct than other countries because of its history. I assure the committee that Israel is committed to upholding human rights. Since we do not live in an ideal world, however, we will always be faced with balancing the protection of human rights with our vital security needs. The president of our Supreme Court stated: "Any balance that is struck between security and freedom will impose certain limitations on both". It is unfair to apply a double standard in respect of Israel, put all the blame and criticism on us and absolve the Palestinians from any responsibility for their actions.

I remind the committee of our unique circumstances. Israel is a tiny country, one third the size of Ireland, and we are surrounded by 22 Arab states with a combined population 54 times greater than ours and a land area 654 times greater that ours. We face an existential threat from Iran, which continues to develop nuclear weapons, denies the Holocaust occurred and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Iran supports Hizbollah terrorism and has gross human rights violations, including the summary execution of political opponents and homosexuals. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember this committee criticising Iran for its threat to destroy Israel or for its denial of the Holocaust.

Chairman

I must point out that we did.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

In recent weeks, there have been calls for the EU-lsrael association agreement to be suspended and for boycotts and sanctions against Israel. I am aware that members of this committee and others have been lobbied to support such calls, but let me remind members that Israel is not solely to blame for the situation in the Middle East and, therefore, should not be singled out for sanction. Calls for boycotts and sanctions are counter-productive and contribute nothing to peace. Such calls could threaten trade and jobs, which would exacerbate economic conditions, not just for Israel and the EU, but also for the Palestinians. Trade between Ireland and Israel, which is important to both of our countries, amounted to more than €400 million in 2009, a considerable amount of which comprises Irish exports.

The way to contribute to peace is to encourage and support dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, not polarise opinion further. My appeal to the committee, if it really wants to contribute to the promotion of peace between us and the Palestinians, is to pressure Hamas to recognise the State of Israel and cease its rocket attacks and to call for the immediate release of our abducted soldier, Gilad Shalit, who is still being held in captivity after almost four years. The committee can also encourage the Palestinian Authority to move to direct negotiations with Israel.

Let me restate Israel's position regarding the ultimate solution to the conflict, which is two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security, namely, the State of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and a future Palestinian state as a homeland for the Palestinian people. I urge the committee to abandon the attitude of taking sanctions against Israel, the double standards and the singling out of Israel. My appeal to the committee is to adopt a more balanced, constructive, fair and just attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on facts and context.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador. Before calling on speakers, I wish to state how upset we are that he does not follow this committee's proceedings in greater detail or with more interest. The Iranian situation has been a matter for discussion at almost every meeting held by the committee in the past two years, as has the threat to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth. Members have raised these issues repeatedly. It is only fair to inform the ambassador, as any suggestion that the committee is one-sided or unfair will be strongly rebutted.

The purpose of this exercise is to see to what extent the Irish experience can be of benefit in the Middle East. I have been informed by both sides that there is no analogy and that they are not the same. There are vague similarities but they are very different. The more we hear about these things, the less convincing that response is. We are convinced there are strong similarities between the Middle East and the island of Ireland. We do not have a simple solution to everything but events over the past 30 years on the island of Ireland have shown us that even the most difficult situations can be resolved, even when opposing sides come from polarised positions and the most appalling atrocities have been committed by each side. Even then, with a good focus on a peacemaking process and a recognition that both sides must recognise each other's existence and the right to exist, matters can progress. I will not digress further. I thank the ambassador for his presentation. Mr. Proinsias De Rossa must go to the airport so I call him first.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I apologise for speaking and then leaving but I must return to Brussels this evening. I welcome the ambassador. It is good to see him here and hear his contribution to the vexed issue. The ambassador is correct in his point about the Mitchell principles. It required the IRA to make an absolute commitment to non-violence but did not require them to forgo their belief that the British state did not have a right to sovereignty in Northern Ireland. I hazard a guess that the IRA still does not accept that and has not made such a declaration. I happen to disagree but that is another matter. I am not arguing that Hamas should not make a declaration to recognise the state of Israel. That is fundamental to the solution. However, I have grave reservations about the idea that the Israeli state demands to be recognised as a Jewish state. That is another debate for another occasion.

Exports from the EU to Israel amount to €1.4 billion. I might be incorrect. Some €11 million goes in the other direction. Some €82 million goes from Ireland to Israel. The primary concern we have with regard to the current hearing is human rights and the compliance of Israel with the requirement in Article 2 of the association agreement with regard to human rights. I refer to the law proceeding through the Knesset on non-governmental organisations in Israel. The association agreement applies to Israel's recognition of human rights internally and internationally. Great concern has been expressed to me by Israeli NGOs that the law, if passed, will seriously impede their functioning in holding the Israeli state to account on human rights.

I refer to the activities of the Israeli state in east Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed. This annexation is not recognised by the European Union, the United Nations or the Irish State. However, this week four members of the PLC have been expelled from east Jerusalem. Some 5,000 Palestinians who are residents of East Jerusalem have been expelled over a number of years. Some 11 members of the PLC are held in prison and my understanding is that ten of them were arrested subsequent to the capture of the young Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. As chair of the European Parliament's delegation to the PLC, I have raised the issue of Gilad Shalit every time I have met members of the PLC, including PLC members of Hamas. When the ambassador refers to putting pressure on Hamas regarding Mr. Shalit, does the ambassador have no objection to parliamentarians meeting Palestinian parliamentarians, including Hamas parliamentarians to exert that pressure?

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I join the Chairman in welcoming the ambassador, Dr. Evrony. He has provided a worthwhile and interesting historical background to this issue. I have made a contribution in his presence before. We are really about the issue of human rights standards. This refers to within the European Union and how seriously this is taken and how this applies to member states with which the EU has an association agreement. Deputy Shatter made an interesting point. The EU has association agreements with Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Israel and an interim agreement with the Palestinian Authority. An agreement with Syria is under negotiation. Some of those countries would not receive an Oscar for human rights. The ambassador has half a point when he asks why Israel is being singled out vis-à-vis these countries. It should be the work of this committee to ensure the human rights element is taken seriously in regard to any country with which the EU has association agreements. The importance of the Middle East and the fact that this has been a matter of controversy is what brings the subject before this committee.

I strongly disagree with one element of the contribution of the ambassador. It is a flaw in his argument, if I may politely say so. He asks us why we do not pay more attention to the human rights records of countries such as Iran. The blunt answer is that the EU does not have an association agreement with Iran. That is the key difference. It is a question of standards. The EU should only have association agreements with countries that will take the standard of human rights seriously. We should not have association agreements with countries that do not take human rights seriously. I regret it if the ambassador sees this as Israel being singled out but we do not have an association agreement with Iran and we have no truck with this. We are not apologists for Iran.

I made this point in an earlier contribution to the ambassador. I refer to the testimony of Mr. Dore Gold who made an interesting contribution on 13 April 2010. I will read out what I said on that occasion:

I was a member of the foreign affairs committee for a few years and at one stage we had planned an official trip to Iran. At about that time, the Iranians decided that they would hold a Holocaust denial conference, so we cancelled our meetings [and we cancelled our trip]. We did so because there is strong support between our country and Mr. Gold's country [Israel].

I am not sure the ambassador intended it but to accuse anyone here of being a Holocaust denier——

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

That is not what I said.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I apologise. I accept the ambassador did not say that but he should be reassured that in my party and in that of the Chairman and almost every party here, we take the issue of the Holocaust seriously. It is an issue on which I offered support when I was Lord Mayor of Dublin. Like other members, I have attended the Holocaust commemoration every year in the Mansion House. Let us not muddy the waters. It is very clear what we want; we want a happy, strong and peaceful Israel which respects human rights. That is the key point.

I understand Israel does not have a constitution, but there is what is called a basic law passed by the Knesset in 1960. In 2003 we incorporated in Irish law the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, done at Strasbourg, through the European Convention on Human Rights Act of that year. The Lisbon treaty contains the Charter of Fundamental Rights which was drafted at the convention. Is there a case for Israel considering incorporating these charters in its domestic law, as we and other European countries have done, to ensure adherence and commitment to respecting human rights?

Deputy Billy Timmins

I welcome the ambassador. I have a number of questions, some of which I raised with Colonel Travers. Before we visited Gaza we met Members of the Knesset in Jerusalem. They spoke about Operation Cast Lead and how the activities of the IDF were aimed at targeting members of Hamas. If that was the case, based on the capability of the IDF, will the ambassador tell me why the American International School was bombed and the industrial zones in Gaza were bombed during the final days of the conflict? Does he believe Israel has breached Article 2 of the trading association agreement?

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank Ambassador Evrony for attending and making a very interesting contribution. In the first instance, the committee has condemned Iran on numerous occasions, even though it does not specifically fall within our remit. Even as recently as last week, the issue of extending the UN sanctions imposed on Iran arose when no member of the committee demurred from the proposals made.

The ambassador has stated sanctions do not contribute to peace. It seems Israel has imposed sanctions on the Palestinians living in Gaza for a considerable period. There is a blockade by sea and land and a refusal to allow reconstruction to repair the damage caused during the incursions in 2008 and 2009. It is very difficult to see how the ambassador can argue against the imposition of sanctions on Israel if for a considerable period it has imposed sanctions on the Palestinian people. Will address this issue?

On numerous occasions this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs have strongly criticised Hamas, with which the European Union does not do business. There is no trade agreement it and it is not recognised by the European Union. In that sense, one could say sanctions have been imposed on Hamas by the European Union and, by extension, Ireland.

Colonel Travers, co-author of the Goldstone report, appeared before the committee earlier. He told us that the conclusion was that the Israeli defence forces had not targeted Hamas in Operation Cast Lead. Properties belonging to it had been left untouched. The population had been targeted. Since the incursions much of the land has been unsuitable for arable use. Initially there was a portion of land of 300 m running along the border. That was extended to 1,000 m and has since been further extended to include 67% of arable land. The intention seems to be to ensure Gaza will not be a viable entity. I would like to hear what the ambassador has to say about this.

The thrust of what we are trying to do, as others have stated, is to determine whether Article 2 of the Euromed agreement was breached through violations of human rights and international law. Will the ambassador directly address the issue of whether it has been breached? Has it been breached by the Israeli Government or military? Has it been breached by Hamas, or the European Union through non-compliance with the conditions enshrined therein?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have two questions, one of which is on the blockade. Not long ago a number of Israeli spokespersons sought to justify for security purposes the near total lock-down and the blocking of the importation of pasta, schoolbooks, pencils and a number of other materials destined for the Palestinian region of Gaza. What has changed in the past week to justify the partial lifting of the restrictions on the importation of these products? Does this prove that international pressure works and that if the international community continues with its demands and the threat of sanctions against it, Israel might eventually lift the blockade completely and address the issue of the denial of the human rights of the Palestinian people? Does the ambassador deny that the blockade of Gaza constitutes collective punishment, as defined by Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, and, therefore, is in breach of international humanitarian law? Does he agree that, as such, this is grounds for suspending the Euromed agreement?

Senator Feargal Quinn

The ambassador is very welcome. I will make a criticism of Israel and him. It seems that when the blockade occurred, it was logical to explain, as he did very capably in the newspaper later, why a blockade was needed. It was explained that after the Israeli forces had pulled out of Gaza, 10,000 rockets and bombs were fired into Israel and that as a result it was essential to examine everything going into Gaza. I come from a different background and my criticism concerns Israel's ability to convince the world because it lost that case. The case was so logical that I could not quite understand why so many people had said it was outrageous. The ambassador explained very well that the blockade began at a time when enemies in Gaza were continuously dropping bombs and had been for some years, and it seemed to make sense not to allow anything into Gaza without examining it. With a little smile I could say my criticism is of your marketing and the ability to convince the public about your point.

The second point is related to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's comments. Will the delegate explain if the list we saw issued was correct? It is a list containing many things which are obviously not weaponry but which are banned from going into Gaza. It included pencils and other items that did not seem to bear any relationship to anything that could be considered a threat. This has been removed but it also has the ability to convince the public and the world that Israel is acting in self-defence. The country did not do a very good job of making the case or of publicising the list of items which were not allowed in but which have since been removed. Will the witness explain why that is so?

Deputy Alan Shatter

I have three brief questions. Having participated in many similar meetings to this in the foreign affairs committee, I ask the ambassador what he believes is the most positive or helpful action Members could take, whether members of the European affairs or foreign affairs committees, to advance the peace process?

The second question follows from Deputy Michael Mulcahy's comments with regard to the Holocaust. To what extent is there concern in Israel that the objectives of Iran and Hamas are to perpetrate a second holocaust? To what extent does that impact on decisions made by Israel about issues of security and defence?

The third question is more for the Chairman and members of the committee. Unfortunately, Deputy Mulcahy has gone and I presume he has other business. He listed the various countries with which there are EU-Mediterranean agreements and had the insight to understand the point I made to Dr. Ajjuri. In the context of the human rights records of each of those countries, I wonder when this committee will commence hearings into the extent to which those countries have complied with Article 2, which has been read to us and forms part of the EuroMed treaty arrangements. It seems that before this committee can reach any conclusion on the motion before it, which nobody has yet adverted to and which I presume will be discussed following these meetings, the committee should get some insight and balance in its approach by reviewing the position of each of these countries. We should also include for consideration the agreement in place with the Palestinian Authority.

Chairman

It is the policy of the committee and its members in all discussions I have been party to, and in previous formations of the committee, to treat any matter presented in a fair and even-handed fashion. Whatever procedures and lines are taken on a subject as it applies to one country, they will similarly apply to another. The committee has been at great pains to do this precisely.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I accept that.

Chairman

It will continue to do so in future. The Minister will be here in exactly ten minutes, unfortunately, whether we like it or not. I have no doubt in the ambassador's capacity to cover the issues raised, with which he is very familiar, in the remaining time. We will have to close out the meeting to hear from the Minister in ten minutes.

H.E. Dr. Zion Evrony

I thank members for their comments, questions and expressions of support. I should clarify that I did not mean that there are Holocaust deniers here. I appreciate the Chairman's correction of my comments in regard to this committee making its views known about Iran, its denial of the Holocaust and the cause for Israel's destruction. The position of this committee is important and I appreciate that it has been put forward.

I did not suggest direct dialogue as a way of pressuring Hamas as the international community has adopted three conditions for any dialogue with Hamas; they are not Israeli conditions but that of the international community. If and when Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist, renounces terrorism and accepts all prior agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it can take part in political dialogue. Israel did not in any way, shape or form violate the article mentioned in the EU-Mediterranean agreement.

What I will attempt to do is explain our special circumstances and convey to the committee the rationale and logic behind some of Israel's policy. I am not here to claim everything we do is perfect and we have made our share of mistakes. Sometimes policies are changed as we move along. I will try to convey to the committee the Israeli psyche. Somehow, the Jewish history takes in the history of the State of Israel in the past 62 years, with threats and unique circumstances. What some call "Israeli obsession for security" are what we deem necessary actions. We can consider our unique circumstances, what we must face and the waves of suicide bombers, terrorism and rocket attacks.

Israel is the only country that has another member of the United Nations repeatedly calling for its annihilation. With regard to Israeli psychology, Deputy Shatter made an important comment on the effect on Israeli decision makers and the public if somebody denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel's destruction and at the same time tries to smuggle heavy missiles to Hamas. It has already built a base in northern Israel and supports Hizbollah politically, financially and with weapons. Now it is trying to build another base in southern Israel. That is the logic behind some of Israel's actions.

We do not live in an ideal world. We can compare Israel's actions to those of other countries under similar circumstances in terms of civilian casualties, damage done to property and security and defence measures taken. Comparing Israel to an ideal or utopian standard is one thing but Israel must be compared to how other armies behaved under similar circumstances. We can consider current and previous wars, and we live in a relative world rather than an absolutist and ideal world. If there is such a comparison in a fair, just and open-minded manner, Israel would rate highly in terms of respect for and protection of human rights.

There is a difficult balance in protecting human rights. Which comes first — the right of Israeli civilians not to be subjected to suicide bombers, or the effects of restrictions and road blocks to prevent the suicide bombers from coming in? This is an ongoing dilemma. It is difficult, living in this beautiful, peaceful country which has as its neighbours the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea, to understand it. To understand it, you must have lived in Jerusalem during the waves of suicide bombings. When I lived there, you would ride the bus in the morning not knowing whether you would come back at the end of the day. You would go into a coffee shop and look around; when you entered a cinema you would not know if the guy next to you was going to blow himself up. This is what I try to convey to members.

Why is it that we take all these measures? It is not because we have any interest in causing suffering to the other side, as some in the pro-Palestinian lobby here proclaim. This is false. The balance is very delicate. Sometimes one must give precedence to security measures at the expense of human rights; sometimes it is the other way around. For that we have our Supreme Court, which is well known for its independence and has criticised and ruled against the Government and the military on many occasions. For those who feel their rights are violated — Palestinians and others — the doors of the Supreme Court are open for them to appeal, and often the court decides in their favour.

Before answering, to as great an extent as time allows, the more specific questions, I am trying to convey to members the overall fundamental idea that we live in a tough neighbourhood. Considering our recent and past history, what we are facing today and our unique geopolitical circumstances, we have to do what we have to do, because we feel our very existence is still threatened.

Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the ambassador; there is a vote coming up which will terminate our discussion. This is a bit unfortunate, but I realise he is coming to the end of his contribution. I suggest that he convey any remaining comments arising from questions put to him to the secretariat. We have accommodated other people in a similar fashion and we will be grateful for that.

I wish to reassure the ambassador on the issue of atrocities. It is not true to say that in this island we do not understand those things; we do. We lived with it, directly and indirectly, for 30 years non-stop, with one atrocity begetting another, which in turn would set off a series of further incidents. These never resolved anything; they only made things worse. It is important that the ambassador realises that the members of this committee are all familiar with that territory, although they may have different points of view. Ultimately, a situation was reached in which each side recognised the other's position to some extent, even though they had to compromise. While the problems are not yet entirely resolved and will not be for quite some time, there is a commitment on the part of all parties involved to at least stick with the constructive process, which is much better than anything we have experienced in the past.

I thank the ambassador for appearing before the committee. When we publish our findings they will be circulated, as the previous report was, and I have no doubt everybody involved will have an opportunity to comment on them.

Sitting suspended at 4.45 p.m. and resumed at 5.10 p.m.

Chairman

This is our fourth and final session today. I welcome the Minister and his officials. The committee has gone through various segments of the issues relating to the Middle East, Gaza, the relationship between Israel and the European Community, EuroMed arrangements and all the associated issues with which the Minister is more than familiar. I thank the Minister for making time available to be here today and to help us to proceed on the road to a conclusion and report on these issues, to which, as we are all aware, the Minister has given some considerable time and a lead in respect of the country and the wider world community. I call on the Minister to address the committee.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin)

We have had a number of opportunities recently in the Dáil and last week in the committee to discuss the events of the past few weeks and the broader issues of the Middle-East conflict. I understand that today's meeting is concentrating on the question of the European Union-Israel association agreement, specifically Article 2, and I am happy to discuss the question with the committee. It is important that any discussion of the agreement should be placed in the appropriate context. I am sure I do not need to recall the importance and priority which I and the Government attach to achieving political progress in the Middle East and to addressing such basic obstacles to peace as the Gaza blockade and settlement. I have been a consistent critic of the blockade since I become Minister for Foreign Affairs two years ago on the basis that it is unjust, illegal, counterproductive and in nobody's strategic interest, least of all that of Israel.

Members will recall the clear position I took on Operation Cast Lead and my condemnation of Israeli actions at that time as completely disproportionate and destructive. This criticism can be equally applied to the Israeli military assault on the Gaza flotilla last month. As the committee knows, I was the first European Union Minister for Foreign Affairs to visit Gaza in more than a year when I travelled there last February. My visit and those subsequently made by European Union High Representative, Ms Ashton, and United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, in March succeeded in focusing renewed attention on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. They also contributed in turn to a slight easing of the Israeli blockade which was visible before the more substantive policy change which was announced earlier this week.

Ireland has always pursued a strong and vigilant policy on Middle East issues, reflecting the deep concern which exists in the Oireachtas and among Irish people generally with the region and the need to promote a peaceful and just settlement there. In that vein, I have strongly criticised Israeli's settlement policy and indicated that my Department, in conjunction with the relevant line Departments and agencies will examine introducing voluntary guidelines to provide for better labelling of produce emanating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

In response to the recent attack on the flotilla, a major consular operation was undertaken by my Department to ensure the safety and welfare of any Irish citizens caught up in those events. I pay particular tribute to the ambassadors and staff of our embassies in Tel Aviv and Ankara for their tireless efforts on behalf of Irish citizens. From speaking with a number of those Irish citizens detained, I know how much all their efforts were sincerely appreciated. Ensuring the safety and welfare of Irish citizens and safeguarding their right to travel freely abroad, as well as defending the integrity and well-earned international reputation of the Irish passport system, also guided the Government's response to the outcome of the recent investigations into the fraudulent use of Irish passports by those suspected of involvement in the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

The firm action taken by the Government last week in requesting Israel to withdraw a member of its embassy staff shows clearly that we are ready to take appropriate measures when required. I have tried to cover briefly some of the major issues which we have been addressing recently in regard to Gaza and our relations with Israel. This is necessary to provide some context and to allow a fuller understanding of how the Government approaches the specific issue of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement.

I will now set out the background to the European Union's Association Agreements, and that with Israel in particular; cover the grade of relations which arises in one of the motions under discussion; explain the Government's view on proposals for a trade boycott against Israel, which is a key background issue relating to this; and talk specifically about Article 2. The European Union-lsrael Association Agreement, which entered into force in 2000, is a framework agreement regulating and structuring contacts and co-operation between the European Union and Israel across the full range of policy areas. This formal structure is the way in which the European Union organises its relations with all of its immediate neighbours. When the draft agreement with Syria is signed, which I hope will be soon, association agreements will be in place with all of our partners in the Mediterranean except Libya.

It is important to recognise that it is the European Union which has insisted on putting this framework in place. Most external partners would prefer to be able to access ad hoc co-operation with the European Union without having to accept the formal structured relationship which the association agreement establishes. One of the critical and most valued elements of this approach for the European Union is the establishment of formal dialogue on political and human rights issues. I will return later to the importance of Article 2, which is more or less equivalent in all of the association agreements.

The bulk of the activity taking place under any association agreement is contained in the European neighbourhood policy action plan with the relevant country. This sets out projects for practical co-operation between the European Union and the partner country in areas such as agriculture, public health, transport, and so on. This often involves helping the partner country to come up to European Union norms and standards in administration, good governance, commercial practice and so forth. It is the normal intention of the European Union, in developing closer relations with all of its neighbours, that these action plans would be progressive, with progress achieved leading on to deeper co-operation.

The existing action plan with Israel was due to run until June 2009, by which time a new action plan would have been negotiated to replace it, building on the progress achieved under the first plan. In anticipation of this next step, the Israeli Government proposed in 2008 that the opportunity be taken to enhance and deepen European Union-Israel relations. In June 2008 the European Union agreed in principle to this at the annual association Council meeting with Israel. The European Union restated this agreement in principle at its December 2008 External Relations Council. Similar upgrade proposals are currently in discussion with a number of other Mediterranean partners, depending on the progress achieved under the existing arrangements.

During the negotiations which took place at the time, the European Union did not generally accept some of the more ambitious Israeli proposals for regular high-profile political contacts and the actual Council decision was for the principle of enhancing relations, with the full detail of what exactly this would entail remaining to be worked out in the negotiations for the new action plan. In fact, those negotiations had scarcely begun when first the Israeli offensive into Gaza and then the Israeli general election in February 2009 intervened and little progress was made.

It is worth noting that the European Union had made clear that any upgrade would have to include the establishment of a full subcommittee on human rights issues. Ireland had all along expressed concern that, whatever was involved in practice, the upgrade of relations with Israel might be seen in Israel and by others in the region as a tacit political endorsement of Israeli policies with which the European Union was in fact in serious disagreement. We had acted to ensure that the language of the Council decisions included a clear link to the European Union's political concerns in the region, especially progress on the peace process.

Following the Gaza conflict and in co-operation with a number of European Union partners, I argued strongly that the European Union should not proceed with the upgrade. I wrote specifically to the Czech Presidency at the time, setting out my concerns. The motion passed by the committee on 15 January 2009 gave helpful support to my actions on this point. In June 2009 the Council agreed that the time was not right to proceed with the upgrade, given the overall lack of progress in the peace process. This remains the position. For practical purposes, the previous action plan has been prolonged, in the absence of negotiations on a replacement.

Needless to say, I remain strongly of the view that no basis currently exists for reviewing the decision to suspend any proposed upgrade, pending clear evidence of overall progress in the peace process and of Israeli willingness to respect its international commitments in regard to such issues as settlements and restrictions on movement throughout the Palestinian territories. In the debate which took place in 2009, it was clearly accepted by Ireland and like-minded partners that a suspension of the upgrade which we sought would not interfere with the normal continuation and development of trade and practical co-operation with Israel under the existing arrangements. Had we challenged this position, it is unlikely the Council would have agreed to suspend the upgrade.

It is a central policy of the European Union to seek to remove barriers to trade and to develop trade with all of its partner countries, in the Mediterranean or elsewhere. This is no different with Israel. Trade sanctions or similar measures such as academic or cultural boycotts are often advocated by concerned groups in regard to many countries, including Israel. The frequent proposals for the suspension of the association agreement with Israel are clearly intended as a first step in the same direction, by removing the favoured trading status which Israel, like many other states, enjoys with the European Union.

l understand and sympathise with the powerful desire to do something which motivates these calls, but no Irish Government has supported a policy of boycotts or sanctions against Israel and it is clear that there is no possibility of obtaining agreement at European Union level for such a ban. A very large proportion of our economy and of the jobs of our people are directly reliant on foreign trade. The list of countries around the world with whom we might have serious human rights concerns is a long one. We can only consider sanctions in the broader context of European Union or, preferably, United Nations sanctions, so that we are not simply cutting Irish exporters out of a market without any effect on the country concerned.

In addition, trade policy and market access are largely European Union competencies and any restriction on imports from Israel would have to be concerted at European Union level. It is worth reiterating that there is no possibility of reaching agreement at European Union level on a trade ban with Israel. I have been very active, as has the Irish Government over a long period, in speaking frankly and directly to Israel including strong criticism of many of its policies. In being so, a critical part of the audience I am trying to reach — perhaps the most important part — is public opinion and opinion formers within Israel. It should be remembered that over the years many of the strongest critics of Israeli policies, and the most effective advocates on justice issues, have been Israeli citizens and non-governmental organisations. We are trying to persuade Israel to change its policies. It is important for us in doing so to show Israelis that we are open to good relations with them, that we are not inherently hostile or negative, that we genuinely believe we have their best interests at heart. It is clear to me that our influence in Israel would be lessened and our voice weakened if we were to advocate — futilely, as I have pointed out — a policy of bans or boycotts.

This is also true at EU level. Ireland has earned, by dint of long, committed and consistent engagement on the issue, a certain weight and influence on the Middle East question at EU and UN levels, well above what our size and distance from the region would suggest. I intend to build on and use that influence as constructively as I can and I will not weaken it by counterproductive gestures.

Turning to Article 2 of the association agreement, this establishes that human rights and democratic principles are an essential basis for the agreement. It is the same with similar agreements concluded with other Mediterranean partners. This is often an element which partner states are very slow to accept when negotiating these agreements. Over time, however, the EU has become firmer in its insistence that these are essential elements in our dealings with partners.

These provisions of association agreements establish that issues of human rights and democracy are areas of mutual concern for discussion between the two sides. They help us, crucially, to counter the traditional defence that these are entirely domestic issues with which the EU has no business concerning itself. This is their essential significance and purpose — they get us in the door and give us a framework in which we can raise these critical and highly sensitive topics for formal discussion.

No EU state, including Ireland, considers that these clauses thereby establish a corollary that, if we are not satisfied with human rights in a given country, we must suspend the association agreement with that country. If such were the case, I think we would find that all of our association partners would immediately refuse to accept such clauses.

The agreement itself makes no provision for suspension. Instead, it provides in Article 75 that either party may raise a problem with the operation of the agreement at the annual association council, where the parties will work to resolve it. In other words, this is a political process, not a legal one.

This was always quite clear. There are few, if any, association partners with whom we do not have ongoing human rights concerns. Differences and dialogue on these issues are institutionally built into and provided for in the agreement, through the creation in the political and human rights sub-committee of a regular mechanism to discuss and try to achieve progress on these issues. The agreements themselves have evolved over the past ten years, and it has become the EU's standard practice to seek the establishment of a full, separate human rights committee as part of the agreements which are currently being negotiated.

I will continue to lay strong emphasis on human rights and justice issues which go to the core of the daily challenges faced by most Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories. Any failure to respect and properly safeguard human rights also reflects negatively on Israel itself as well as threatening the fragile opportunity which now exists to achieve a lasting peace. I do not consider that seeking the suspension of the association agreement would be a useful element in that effort.

On developments occurring since the Israeli military assault on the Free Gaza flotilla and, in particular, the announcement by the Israeli Government last Sunday which appears to herald a partial lifting of the blockade on Gaza, the Israeli Government has announced an internal investigation into the events of 31 May, with two outside observers including Mr. David Trimble. This inquiry, in its make-up and parameters, has engendered a mixed response internationally.

I have stated unequivocally, publicly, my support for UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban's proposal for an international commission, possibly led by former New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr. Palmer. The Secretary General's proposal is the most realistic and credible idea on the table. It is the approach with the greatest chance of achieving international acceptance and it should be pursued.

The question of the transfer to Gaza of the humanitarian cargo from the initial flotilla ships has now been settled between Israel and the UN Special Co-ordinator Robert Serry, with the agreement of the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish IHH. All of the cargo is being moved into Gaza via the crossing points and the UN will oversee its distribution to the recipients.

The UN is now in similar discussions relating to the cargo on the Rachel Corrie, and I hope we will see agreement shortly for its aid to be moved into Gaza in its entirety. The reported initial refusal of Hamas to admit goods seized by Israel is understood by the UN to have been reversed; certainly there would have been no understanding for this Hamas position if they had maintained it.

Most importantly, perhaps, has been what I hope may be the beginning of the end of the blockade of Gaza, in response to the universal international reaction that this state of affairs could not continue. I welcome the indications that Israel has decided to significantly relax the conditions it imposes on the transfer of goods to Gaza.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu has stated that Israel will accept, instead of the very small list of permitted items at present, a switch to a short negative list of items which will be blocked. This includes acceptance that all goods not on this list will be free to enter, that building materials for important and properly overseen UN or PA-approved reconstruction projects may enter, and that additional crossing points will re-open.

While welcoming this development, we will wait to see the detail of what it will mean in practice. The exceptions to the measures announced by Israel should be arms and dual-use goods which can be clearly used for offensive purposes; in circumstances where dual-use goods are needed for the economic recovery of Gaza, such goods should be allowed in under strictly controlled circumstances. Everything else should be allowed, and there should be no restriction on volume. If the expectations created by this week's announcement are to be fulfilled and confidence sustained, it is vital that the changes signalled should be delivered very quickly on the ground.

What we are talking about here is not just a question of humanitarian aid. Gazans need to be able to resume a normal life and to have full mobility and freedom to travel. They need to be able to import and export goods so that they can earn a living, provide for their families and lead the normal and productive lives which they have been denied hitherto. They must also have complete freedom to travel, whether to the West Bank or elsewhere, for study or medical treatment. These are part of the essential rights and freedoms to which Gazans are entitled as much as anyone else.

Israel has a right to remain vigilant over the movement of arms into Gaza and to expect an end to attacks upon its territory. It is also right to say to anyone who is listening that this would be an appropriate moment to release the captured Sergeant Shalit, who has been held in Gaza for four years, with no access to visits by the Red Cross or messages from his family.

Looking further ahead, I hope we will see in due course the re-opening of the port of Gaza and free movement of people for all purposes. I reiterate that my clear objective remains the complete lifting of this blockade which I have consistently opposed. I will continue to press strongly for this at EU level. I can think of no confidence-building measure which would do more to transform Israel's image internationally and to improve the overall environment for achieving progress in the current proximity talks which we continue to support fully.

Chairman

I thank the Minister. Deputy Joanna Tuffy indicated first, followed by Deputies Michael Mulcahy, Joe Costello and Alan Shatter, Senator Feargal Quinn and Deputy Seán Power in that order.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I thank the Minister for his presentation much of which I agree with. He made the point that the Euro-Med agreement makes no provision for suspension. That is a point I made previously. Obviously we will hear more about that as the hearings go on. Certainly from my reading of the agreement, it allowed for a unilateral ending of the agreement by one or other of the parties to it and where issues arose in regard to human rights abuses, the idea was that the parties would work through dialogue to try to resolve those issues. Did the Minister get legal advice to the effect that the agreement cannot be suspended? I am opposed to campaigns for boycotts of Israeli goods. I can see the argument for not upgrading the Euro-Med agreement and I think the human rights provisions in that agreement should be used. Generally, I accept that dealing with other countries in terms of exports and imports are positive developments that could lead to a peace process. The people of Gaza need to be able to live sustainable lives and one way to do that is to allow them to export and import goods and have proper lifestyles which we in the West have and take for granted. That is my view but that is not to say actions should not be taken in regard to particular acts by Israel or Palestine.

I refer to the flotilla. I agree with the points made about the investigation. There should be a proper investigation in which people have faith. It is important to get to the bottom of what happened. As far as I can see, there is very little information about the people who were killed and so on and what led to that. We really need a proper investigation and the Minister is right to raise that.

The work the Minister has done to help the people on the flotilla is very important in terms of ensuring the goods reached Gaza and so on. What is his view on future flotillas of this nature? For example, there are reports of this type of flotilla leaving from Iran and Lebanon. Is the Minister in favour of that? Is he in favour of Irish citizens getting involved in that type of initiative?

The Minister mentioned the importance of security for Israel but he mentioned Hamas in one sentence that the initial refusal of Hamas to admit goods seized by Israel is now understood by the UN to have been reversed. However, I have made the point before that what Hamas is doing needs to be raised. As the Minister said, if one wants to engage with both sides, it is important there is balance in the discussions. That is important when we debate the issue.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I join with the Chairman in welcoming the Minister and I thank him for this very reasoned contribution, most of which I agree with. I pay tribute to him on his work in highlighting this issue here and at EU level. I do not believe there are many other foreign ministers who have been as active in this area as he has. It is a pity other European countries are not as active on the human rights front as the Minister has been.

The Minister very kindly referred to the motion which he found helpful when it was passed in January 2009. The motion was passed after the situation in Gaza began. The whole focus of the motion was human rights. The Minister referred twice to bans and boycotts and said he would not be in favour of suspending the agreement but there is no mention of that in the motion.

The point of the motion was for this committee to examine whether there was a breach of Article 2 of the agreement. I know the Minister has considered it very carefully but the words are worth repeating. The agreement states:

"Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement."

The Minister would agree that the issue of human rights and respect for same is an absolutely essential part of this agreement and other association agreements, as he correctly pointed out. To push the argument to its logical conclusion, if a country with whom the EU had an association agreement showed complete and blatant disregard for human rights as to be so clearly in breach of such an agreement, would it not become an issue for deliberation at EU level? I am not saying that has happened here but when the phraseology is so strong in the clause — the word "essential" is used — our good citizens are entitled to understand that their representatives at European Council level take the word "essential" in its literal sense. I am stressing its importance.

A very interesting reply was given earlier by Proinsias De Rossa, MEP. He was asked if he believed there had been a breach of the association agreement and he said there had been by both the European Union for not enforcing the agreement and by the Israelis for not respecting human rights. That is an interesting perspective.

The Minister said that any failure to respect and properly safeguard human rights also reflects negatively on Israel, with which I agree. However, could I turn that around a little? Any failure to respect and properly safeguard human rights also reflects negatively on the European Union. Surely the European Union, as a body committed to the very highest standards, must be at the forefront of insisting on the highest level of human rights in countries with which it has association agreements?

That is the context of our deliberations, which is consistent with what the Minister has said internationally. I have never called for a boycott, a suspension or anything like that. I simply believe — perhaps it is partly due to my training as a lawyer — there is a legally enforceable binding agreement between the EU and Israel which has terms that must be complied with. It is part of the business of the Joint Committee on European Affairs to inquire whether the terms of one of the EU's agreements are being complied with. I am trying to put the motion in context.

I do not know what conclusions we will reach at the end of our deliberations but the Minister will keep abreast of them and will read our final report. I believe I speak for everyone when I say that we would rather not have this discussion at all. We would rather EU-Israeli relations were perfect and that they were trading happily. We should not really have to discuss this but, unfortunately, it is on the agenda and we must deal with it.

Deputy Joe Costello

I welcome the Minister and compliment him on his closely argued contribution. I wish to reflect the point on which Deputy Mulcahy finished. The thrust of our work today is whether there has been a breach of Article 2 dealing with the issue of human rights and international law. If there has been a breach, that is another day's work. We have not talked about boycotts or anything of that nature. The matter we are trying to determine is whether there has been a breach.

The Minister said that no such agreement exists in the context of the illegal settlements. He said that he has strongly criticised Israeli settlement policy and indicated that his Department, in conjunction with the relevant line Departments and agencies, will examine introducing voluntary guidelines to provide for better labelling of produce emanating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Euro-Mediterranean association agreement does not apply to goods emanating from these settlements. The settlements in question are illegal and, therefore, the terms of the agreement do not apply. In such circumstances, they are not entitled to preferential or favoured status. That was clearly determined by the European Court of Justice in the Brita case. The court also indicated that it is the responsibility of individual member states to take the necessary steps to implement its judgment.

It appears to me, therefore, that we cannot simply examine the prospect of introducing guidelines in respect of this matter. There is a need to take action. Who is going to implement the voluntary guidelines? The Government must take action to ensure that goods which breach our international agreements are not sold in Irish shops. The goods to which I refer are being sold surreptitiously as Israeli goods when, in fact, they emanate from illegally occupied settlements. I understand that something of the order of 75% of all fruit and vegetables listed as being Israeli in origin are actually grown in the settlements to which the terms of this preferential trade agreement do not apply.

The Minister is going to be obliged to ensure that the action his Department, the other relevant line Departments and the Government propose to take will be far more comprehensive in nature. I await his response in respect of this matter.

The Minister also stated that it is worth noting that the European Union had made clear that any upgrade would have to include the establishment of a full committee on human rights issues. He further stated that the agreements have evolved during the past ten years and that it has become the European Union's standard practice to seek the establishment of a full, separate human rights committee as part of the agreements that are currently being negotiated. Either a sub-committee is going to be introduced when the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean association agreement is being upgraded or else it is standard practice to seek full and separate committees in respect of all agreements. Which is it? I am of the view that it should be standard practice.

The best way to deal with the Article 2 provisions that attach to all agreements of this nature would be to establish a sub-committee which would be responsible for monitoring human rights compliance issues. That appears to be the only way to proceed. To date, the human rights compliance provision has been treated merely as an add-on rather than, as the actual text of the agreement states, an essential prerogative.

The Minister also outlined his preference for the establishment of an international commission, possibly to be led by former the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Geoffrey Palmer. He stated that this commission could operate in parallel with the Israeli inquiry. In circumstances where an Irish-owned vessel was boarded on the high seas and where the Irish crew and citizens on board were taken to an Israeli port, I do not know how the Minister could accept an internal inquiry carried out by the government responsible for that act of piracy. I cannot see how the Minister can do anything other than seek the establishment of an international commission. There is no way Ireland could tolerate a situation where there is only one proposal on the table. I will be interested in seeing how this matter pans out. There must be an international commission rather than an internal inquiry with a couple of external observers involved.

There is also the issue of how Ireland has been treated by Israel in respect of the theft of passports. The lives of Irish citizens have been put at risk as a result of Israel's actions in this regard. Israel has not been that friendly to Ireland over the years. In fact, Ireland has been much more friendly towards Israel. In many ways it appears a business-as-usual approach has been reinstated in the aftermath of the traumatic events involving the flotilla. The additional protocol, which the Minister described as technical in nature, has been signed. Under this, medical and pharmaceutical products have been brought within the terms of the preferential Euro-Mediterranean agreement. Ireland has also given its support to Israel's participation in the OECD.

Deputy Micheál Martin

That happened prior to recent events.

Deputy Joe Costello

Yes, but it has since been reconfirmed. The Minister wrote to the committee confirming that this was Ireland's position, one way or another.

Deputy Micheál Martin

No, that happened before the events relating to the flotilla. The Deputy should not state "it is business as usual."

Deputy Joe Costello

It happened on 8 May.

Deputy Micheál Martin

If the Deputy wishes to play games——

Chairman

The Minister will have an opportunity to respond when the Deputy concludes.

Deputy Joe Costello

I understand that the European Union proposes to allocate €70 million in research and development funding to Israel. What are the Minister's proposals in respect of that matter? He has opposed an upgrade in the Euro-Mediterranean agreement. If there are alternative activities which are being afforded status equivalent to that which relates to favoured trading, then what is being done is fairly meaningless.

I raise these points because the Minister commented upon them when making his presentation. However, the main thrust of our deliberations is to determine whether human rights violations occurred. The action that might be taken if such violations did occur is a different matter entirely.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I thank the Minister for his presentation. On a visit to the United States in 1994, I was asked to explain — I was only given seven minutes to do so — the situation in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. It was an interesting challenge and a number of people approached me afterwards to say that they had not previously understood the situation in the North. It always seems possible to solve the problems of countries on the other side of the world. I, therefore, have great sympathy for the Minister and his European counterparts as they try to face up to the challenges that exist in many parts of the world.

I am of the view that discussing matters represents the best way forward. The EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean association agreement will at least ensure that we remain involved in discussions. Referring to boycotts, etc., will make it much less easy for people to continue to talk to each other.

The Minister expressed a concern to the effect that an upgrade in the EU's relationship with Israel might imply a tacit political endorsement of that country's policies. Relationships of this nature must be as strong as possible. I am of the view, therefore, that there is no link between accepting other states' policies and reaching agreements with them. If there were such a link, then we should not really be dealing with China because we have had many disagreements with that country.

I have some difficulty with the words the Minister used in respect of the blockade. He used the terms "unjust", "illegal", "in nobody's interest" and "counterproductive". I agree with him that the action taken by the Israelis was counterproductive. However, I am not sure what they could have done which would have been judged to be productive. I have already expressed to the Minister my opinion that the Israeli point of view has not been put across very well. The Israeli point has not been well marketed. If they are being hit by rockets from Gaza, it is logical that they should say they will not allow anything into Gaza unless they have an opportunity to inspect it. I do not know the answer but what happened was counterproductive and they came out of it badly. We questioned the Israeli ambassador earlier but I am not sure why they were able within a week to reduce the long list of goods that should not be brought into Gaza. My criticism of the Israelis relates more to their marketing and their ability to engage in public relations on that basis.

I urge them to continue to talk and to keep the relationship open. The points the Minister is making are strong. He is highly regarded and Ireland is also highly regarded because of what he says. However, let us ensure we do not take any steps that suggest there is an easy solution to this in order that we do not lose the good faith we have established over the years.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Like other members, I listened with interest to the Minister's speech and much of what is in it reflects a letter he circulated last April. Again, I have some questions. I am concerned that, because this State is perceived as adopting an unbalanced approach to the problems of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are not fulfilling the potential we could exercise in seeking to genuinely assist in the resolution of the conflict. What positive steps has the Minister, on behalf of this State, taken in the past two years to advance the peace process?

As part of the EU, certain principles have been laid down to be complied with by Hamas to facilitate its involvement in the peace process. What view has the Minister of the current Hamas regime operating in Gaza? What steps has he taken at international level to highlight the violation of the rights of Palestinians by Hamas in Gaza and the murder by Hamas of hundreds of inhabitants? What initiative was taken by the Government when Hamas on 31 May closed down the offices of four different Palestinian human rights organisations operating in Gaza and removed their laptops and documentation? What protest did the Government make or what action did it take at the UN after a UN building was occupied by masked men in Gaza and a large amount of content stored there to be used by UNRWA under the leadership of John Ging for children in the UNRWA organised holiday camps was destroyed? What action did the Government take arising out of the threat left by the masked invaders of that particular building to murder John Ging? Did the Government even notice that occurred?

I agree with the Minister that the blockade of Gaza was ill-conceived and who believes that after the conflict that took place, everything possible should have been done to facilitate reconstruction in Gaza and the commencement of ordinary commerce. The Minister also acknowledged, in that occurring and in the context of recent announcements, that the Israelis are entitled to protect themselves against rocket fire and suicide bombers and that the sea blockade of Gaza and sea access to Gaza poses a particular difficulty in circumstances in which a state such as Iran is supplying weapons to Hamas and would be willing to provide and supply weapons of increasing sophistication if they could be taken there. What initiative has the Government taken to allow for the development of a situation where there can be sea access to Gaza while the legitimate rights of the Israelis to ensure armaments are not brought through a port in Gaza to contribute to the tension and conflict in the region are vindicated? Has the Minister considered an international initiative to allow for the international inspection of ships to address this particular concern?

Is the Minister concerned that the mere calling for the lifting of the blockade of Gaza, particularly the blockade simpliciter from the sea, is playing into the hands of the Iranians and could contribute to a substantial difficulty? What discussions has he had with the Iranian ambassador to this State — I mean serious discussion as opposed to a five-minute exchange of cordialities at the UN — or with leading politicians who are part of the Iranian Government to protest about that state’s continuous campaign to derail the peace process since 1993, its opposition to the Oslo Accords and its holding of anti-peace conferences with annual regularity in Tehran? What initiative has the Government taken to try to make it clear to the Iranian ambassador that the approach taken by Iran is detrimental to a peace process and is doing huge harm to the Palestinian people?

To what extent does the Minister consider the divisions between Fatah and Hamas impede a peace process? If an agreement was concluded between the Israelis and the Palestinians, how could it be effectively implemented in circumstances in which Hamas adheres to its current position, which is a commitment to destroy to the Israeli state?

Like other members, I agree with a number of comments the Minister made in his contribution and I disagree with some. With regard to the Euro-Mediterranean agreement, Deputy Mulcahy detailed the parties to a series of identical agreements to the Israeli agreement, none of which has what one might describe as laudatory human rights records. The Minister stated, "There are few, if any, association partners with whom we do not have ongoing human rights concerns". On the basis that there are human rights concerns with a substantial number of those who are party to association agreements, does he think it would be counterproductive to the capacity of this State to contribute from a balanced perspective to a peace process if this committee were simply to pick out Israel and condemn it for violating Article 2 of its Euro-Mediterranean agreement while ignoring the violations of other states? Does he agree that, perhaps, this committee, before it embarked on that course, should conduct a similar hearing and examination into other agreements?

Has the Minister concerns, particularly in light of the developments announced on Friday with regard to the blockade, which I hope can be constructively lifted in the manner proposed, about suggestions that Iran might sponsor its own flotilla or alternatively a flotilla from Iran might, as was suggested two weeks ago, go to Gaza guarded by Iranian ships? What are his concerns about a flotilla from Lebanon and what is his view of citizens of this State participating in either of those flotillas? Is he concerned that some of those engaged recently in the flotilla which produced very tragic deaths — which should not have occurred — are people solely motivated by humanitarian concerns who are genuinely concerned about people in Gaza and their plight, while others are people who are motivated by the political objective of delegitimising the Israeli State and committed to its destruction? Is he concerned there is a risk that Government foreign policy could be hijacked by small groups of political activists who have as their objective the delegitimisation of the Israeli State as opposed to the conclusion of a peace process which results in a two-state solution?

Chairman

I am sure the Minister is well capable of dealing with the long list of questions, although I understand he is under some time constraint. The purpose of our hearing is to establish, in so far as we can, the basis for some of the arguments being put forward. We also recognise the Minister's involvement in this area and believe the international community should always be prepared to comment on what it sees as not the right course of action. Otherwise, those actions may lead to further action by others and, perhaps, counteraction.

I wish to make two quick points. With regard to the visit carried out by this committee in conjunction with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, evidence was presented to us of human rights abuses on all sides in the case of prisoners. I know the Minister is interested in this question and I hope he continues to show that interest. The international criteria with regard to the treatment of prisoners under the control of administrations anywhere, whether Palestinian, Israeli, Hamas, Fatah or whatever, should always be observed. I am aware the Minister has been involved in the situation in that regard in Iran.

I would like to comment on how people react in situations. Israel is located in what is generally regarded by it as a hostile territory. People often react from fear. Whatever the cause of the reaction, it can also bring about a counter reaction which can lead to further degeneration of the situation. Whatever the original motivating factor, when people are dead, it makes little difference how the situation arose or the original cause. We know this well from our experience.

Another issue raised by members of the group at the time we visited was the need for a permanent peace structure at which the issues arising could be addressed, before they came to be dealt with arbitrarily either side. I am aware this need is becoming more visible and there seems to be a greater emphasis on it in the region. It is something that should be borne in mind. I apologise for going on so long, but this is a serious issue that requires adequate discussion.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I will take the questions in the order they were raised. Deputy Tuffy raised a number of questions on the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement. It is open to both parties to pull out of existing agreements. I made the point in my speech that there is an existing association agreement with Israel, which was due to run out in mid 2009. That agreement has been prolonged because of the decision of the European Union not to enhance the agreement. As members are aware, the evolution of agreements has been that if progress is made, they are enhanced. We took a position on that and I wrote to the Czech Ministry which had the Presidency at the time pointed out clearly that the situation did not justify an enhancement of an existing association agreement.

I mentioned I am opposed to boycotts and Deputy Tuffy said she too was opposed to them and that trade was something positive. I agree and accept the basic premise that it can facilitate dialogue and engagement. Senator Quinn made a similar point. That process continues.

The Deputy said there was little information available on who was killed. With regard to the flotilla, I have condemned unequivocally what happened and have condemned the killings, but am aware that other people have used different language. Deputy Shatter stated these were tragic deaths which should not have occurred. I do not know what that means. I am very clear that what happened should not have occurred and should be condemned unequivocally by every member of this committee. That is my personal opinion. There can be no equivocation about this happening in international waters. I have spoken to people who were on the flotilla. Many of the ships were checked and the goods were sealed. We should, at least, be clear about that.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I understand that.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I do not think Deputy Tuffy meant it this way, but I hope ——

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

What I meant was that there should be transparency about the situation.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I know that, but there has been a kind of subtle stirring of the pot.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I did not mean it that way.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I know the Deputy did not and do not suggest she did. The Deputy also raised the issue of future flotillas. We must be careful not to equate the past flotilla with a potential new flotilla led by Iran or Lebanon. It would be wrong to do that, particularly for the existing and Irish members of the flotilla. I met the Irish people who were on the flotilla and they are sincere and committed people. We are a democracy and we uphold the right to political protest and for people here to make a political point. These people, without any prompting, said they would have no interest in an Iranian-led flotilla and that they could see immediately what its agenda would be. I would certainly not recommend any Irish citizen to join a flotilla led by Iran, because that would be very dangerous. Our ultimate aim throughout this episode has been the protection of Irish citizens. To go on a flotilla organised and led by Iran would be extremely dangerous. It would also be very unwise for Iran to do such a thing. It would be potentially explosive and would add to the tensions we need to reduce and defuse in the area. The same applies to any Lebanese-led flotilla. Because of the tensions that exist between Lebanon and Israel and the historic difficulties in that regard, I would be very fearful for the safety of Irish citizens who would participate on such flotillas.

In response to another of Deputy Tuffy's questions, I have consistently raised issues relating to Hamas. We have consistently condemned rocket attacks by Hamas into Israel and we have consistently called for the release of Sergeant Shalit who is now four years in captivity. I will come back to the issue of Hamas later in response to Deputy Shatter's questions.

Deputy Mulcahy's points were different. He pointed out that this committee passed two motions some time back, one of which focused on human rights. I accept what he said and we were well aware of that coming here. I accept also that committee members did not call for a boycott or suspension of trade, although it has been in the currency of debate. That is the reason I took the opportunity to address that issue in my speech. In the civil society debate that has occurred on the Middle East generally in the past number of weeks, the issue of a boycott has been raised. In the recent ICTU conference held in Dublin Castle, a boycott was advocated by some delegates. Therefore, I wanted to put my position up front and on the record, as I have done before. I did the same at the ICTU conference. We have been very clear and consistent about that for a long time.

There is also an opportunity to raise the human rights issue at the association Council meetings, which are held annually. I would point out, however, that at the outset, the idea of bringing human rights clauses into the agreement was to create a framework for dialogue on human rights questions with those who signed association agreements with the European Union. Many of the partners concerned do not like human rights clauses being put into the agreement. They would prefer agreements to deal with just the trade and other issues and not to have an institutional framework for the discussion and raising of issues pertaining to human rights. The association agreements at least have the merit of having a framework within which human rights issues can be discussed.

I accept the point there are no guarantees that one will get what one wants and no guarantee that will achieve an adherence to best practice in human rights. Therefore, it is the old argument that the easiest thing to do is not to engage in any agreements and to stay back. In my view we have to persist with it and keep pursuing it. The Deputy's point is valid. I accept it and I have raised at European Union level that if we are partners to association agreements we always have to weigh up the balance and how it reflects on us. That is not only with regard to Israel but also with regard to other countries with whom we have association agreements. As I said in my speech, there are many countries across the globe with whom we have human rights issues. We trade with those countries but we also raise human rights questions with them through structured dialogue, either at EU level or on a bilateral basis.

I have taken a position with regard to the international inquiry because I feel at times that some of the players here would like to undermine the UN as an institution. In my view, it is important that the EU does not do anything that might indirectly undermine the status of the UN or somehow weaken the legitimacy of the UN as a vehicle for conducting genuine good quality investigations.

Deputy Joe Costello raised a number of issues. He made the point that it is up to the committee to determine whether there has been a breach of the association agreement and I accept that view. I am here as a witness to contribute to the committee's considerations of the issues. He raised the question of goods from illegal settlements. The Department is doing what it can to take the lead across Government and to be practical about it in terms of what is possible with regard to the importation of goods from illegally established settlements. I will gladly work with the Deputy and if he has any further constructive suggestions as to the mechanisms that could be deployed, I am open to suggestions in that regard. We are working with other Departments to tighten up on this policy. The British Government has taken a lead in this respect at EU level and we are working in co-operation with the measures it is introducing.

Deputy Joe Costello was saying earlier that it has been a case of business as usual but that is not really the case. In my view, the attack on the flotilla has been somewhat of a watershed with regard to the blockade. I hope the announcement in recent days is realised shortly on the ground in Gaza and that the significant change to the operation of the blockade happens. This demonstrates there has been a change in the mindset of the Israeli Government in its approach and in its policy. This has come about as a result of sustained international pressure following the attack on the flotilla. It has been made very clear by the international community that the blockade is not sustainable. The best way to avoid future flotillas is to take the blockade issue out of the equation. I made this point very forcibly at the European Union and elsewhere. This is a no-brainer, so to speak, in my view.

This is what I meant by counter-productive and I will deal with Senator Quinn's points later. It has been wholly counter-productive to the political settlement and the peace process that is required and it has strengthened Hamas rather than weakened it. Hamas is earning revenue from the goods coming in through the tunnels. As I said at a previous committee meeting I have met legitimate business people in Gaza whose business has been wiped out because of the blockade. These are business people who have been dealing with Israel and Israeli merchants and trades people for a long time and they have been wiped out because of the blockade. In the meanwhile, a new cohort of business people is emerging in Gaza who are paying taxes and dues to Hamas. If that is not counter-productive I do not know what is.

In my view, the objective behind the blockade was to try to screw Hamas and one and a half million people have been victims of that tragedy. This is my personal view but it is probably a view that is widely shared. This policy has gone wrong and horribly so. The misery that has been visited upon the people of Gaza is appalling and there can be no messing around with the language here. I have been to Gaza and I am glad I went to Gaza because I saw at first hand the impact of the blockade which is not justifiable under any circumstances.

In answer to Deputy Costello's point, I assure him there is still an existing association agreement which allows for continued trade and engagement with Israel. That has not been suspended and as I said in my opening remarks, there is no prospect of it being suspended.

Deputy Joe Costello

I was speaking about the upgrade.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The upgrade has not happened and will not happen.

Deputy Joe Costello

That is what I said.

Deputy Micheál Martin

No, the Deputy referred about the issue of "business as usual." There is an existing association agreement which will continue.

On the point raised by Senator Quinn, I think I have answered the issue of dialogue and I accept that point. On the question of what is meant by counter-productive, I hope I have dealt with the counter-productive argument. On a more strategic level it is also counter-productive because in the long term it endangers Israel's security as it creates a generational mindset against Israel which is not helpful to eventual Israeli security. We know from our experience on this island that the worst type of bitterness or division is a deeply embedded one. Generations of Gazans are potentially embittered against Israel because of the blockade.

What struck me most was the malnutrition among children in Gaza. It has one of the youngest populations in the world. One sees the children on every corner. The UNRWA figures about absolute poverty and the numbers falling below the poverty line since the conflict and since the blockade have been increasing dramatically in the past year and a half. I visited the food centres and I saw the people queuing. It is not a nice experience and it does not have to happen, in my view. This all engenders bitterness and hardens people. It helps to radicalise opinion and undermines the voice of moderation. There are significant voices of moderation in Gaza which we should be supporting and endeavouring to strengthen. That is my basic point about how the blockade has gone horribly wrong.

It has been a humanitarian disaster as well. According to WHO standards, more than 90% of the water is not potable. The raw sewage goes into the Mediterranean and the soil is now significantly toxic. All of the enabling factors for allowing civil society to develop and become restored are being undermined every day. In my opinion, urgent action is required there. My criticism is more than just aimed at the Israeli marketing strategy because in my view, the core of Israeli policy is to be criticised.

Deputy Shatter asked a range of questions. He said I had an unbalanced approach and he asked what positive actions could be taken. We have taken a range of positive actions. Following my appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs I went to the Middle East and met with the Israeli Government, with Tzipi Livni, the foreign affairs minister at the time and with the Minister for social welfare, Isaac Herzog, and with Mr. Fayyad, the Palestinian Prime Minister who has done exceptional work in building the state and building capacity within the Palestinian Authority. We met with the Egyptian Government, with Mr. Aboul Gheit and with Mr. Suleiman. On that occasion I also met with President Assad of Syria who at that stage had been in discussions, through the mediation of Turkey, with Israel. These discussions had come to an abrupt halt at the same time as we met President Assad, if I remember correctly and the Syrians were more than concerned about this development.

Our approach was very constructive. At that stage we visited the West Bank. What I saw in the West Bank was not constructive. Some of the policies there were undermining Mr. Fayyad, who is regarded as the key capacity builder within the Palestinian Authority and administration. He was a very frustrated man when I met him with regard to security policies and policies which were undermining support for his administration. I articulated this view on that occasion. I assure Deputy Shatter we listened to the Israeli perspective on that occasion. We had a fairly robust but constructive engagement. We put our policy positions across. We have been very supportive of UNRWA and I have increased our support to the agency, which is one of the most positive things anybody can do regarding Gaza. UNRWA is the last protector against the radical Islamisation of Gaza or extreme positions taking root in Gaza. A secular education is provided in Gaza under the aegis of UNRWA. The summer camps that were mentioned have been extraordinarily popular. The Deputy is correct in saying that Hamas would not be the greatest cheerleader of UNRWA for that reason. We have been very clear about our support of UNRWA throughout this phase. I have raised the need to support UNRWA at all levels — European Union level and at United Nations level. When I met Ban Ki-moon and other senior UN officials recently, and in meetings with representatives of other countries, we consistently raised the need to support UNRWA. We must remember that the UNRWA compound was bombed during the war on Gaza even though John Ging of UNRWA gave the co-ordinates to Israeli military leaders. I condemned that unequivocally at the time. I am not sure whether Deputy Shatter did so. I do not understand why the Israelis would bomb the compound where UNRWA was storing food. Equally I would condemn any threatening or intimidating actions by Hamas and have done so. The UNRWA personnel are under significant security protection because of the very brave work they do in very challenging and difficult circumstances.

We have also supported Palestinian human rights organisations. When I visited Gaza I met three human rights organisations operating in Gaza again under significant difficulties and constraints. We support them financially as we financially support Israeli NGOs based in Israel. I regard all those as constructive steps that we have taken.

We have also had discussions with the US Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, on these issues. I discussed my visit to Gaza with US President, Mr. Obama. We have participated in every EU debate on the Middle East and have been constructive in those debates. There are significant divergences in approaches to the Middle East across the European Union, some formed by history, some formed by geography and some formed by responses to events as they unfold.

Regarding the methodologies of getting in aid without allowing weapons in, we accept Israel's right to security and protection. The Cypriots and Greeks have made proposals on how ships could be protected going into Gaza and we have supported them. They have not gained traction with all EU member states or more importantly with Israel. However, those models are well worth pursuing. We proposed a model regarding the MV Rachel Corrie. We had direct discussions with the Israeli authorities suggesting that two crew members and two Irish officials would verify the aid going in under the aegis of the United Nations via Ashdod. That is further evidence of our constructive approach.

We stay in constant contact with UNRWA and will continue to fund it to the level that we have. We will do everything we can to advance its position.

I believe Deputy Shatter said that the aid flotilla attack was ill-conceived.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I raised the issue of the sea blockade being complex because of the Iranian influence.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I hope the Deputy was not implying that any meetings I had with representatives of Iran were somehow undermining something. He has done it before. So I hope he was not. I believe it is unworthy of him to so do.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I was merely inquiring what——

Chairman

The Minister to continue without interruption.

Deputy Alan Shatter

—— discussions the Minister had had with the Iranians about them continually sabotaging the peace process.

Chairman

The Minister to continue without interruption.

Deputy Micheál Martin

With the greatest respect, the Deputy does not merely inquire. I believe he made heavily loaded suggestions.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I was simply asking what discussions he had with the Iranians about their continually sabotaging the peace process since 1993.

Chairman

The Minister should not be sidetracked, as the Ceann Comhairle might say.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I was just responding to a specific question on the Iranian issue. I met the Iranian Foreign Minister at the United Nations for approximately half an hour — not for five minutes. It was a formal bilateral meeting. Subsequent to that we wrote a very strong letter to the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr. Mottaki, in terms of human rights abuses and the nuclear issue. We have had recent meetings also. Iran is in no doubt about where we stand on its approach to the Middle East and its approach to a range of issues, including its abuse of human rights and its failure to fulfil its international obligations regarding the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. One of the most constructive steps we have played in recent years has been our chairmanship of the Middle East resolution of the NPT review conference during which we managed to devise a formula that has restored momentum to the ideal of a nuclear-free Middle East. It was a significant diplomatic achievement. Most people would admit there are enormous challenges in getting countries that are poles apart, including Iran, the United States and others around to a common agenda to try to move that dossier forward.

We would be very much opposed to any Iranian-led flotilla to Gaza. We believe that would be looking for trouble and would add to the tensions. We would discourage Irish citizens from participating in such a flotilla. We are playing into no one's hands in calling for the lifting of the blockade, as the Deputy suggested. We called for the lifting of the blockade primarily on a humanitarian basis. We do that objectively as many others across the world have. We are fair-minded people. It is not unbalanced to call for the lifting of the blockade. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I could not stand over any wishy-washy policy on the blockade given the enormous impact it has had on the people there.

We support the reconciliation process. There is potential to realise Palestinian reconciliation. Prior to reconciliation taking place there is a need to recognise that we are dealing with two equals and it is an effective union between the two. It is very important that ultimately there would be reconciliation in order to enable any political settlement to anchor.

We have been very clear that Hamas should and must renounce violence and must recognise the right of Israel to exist. As I said here last week, a number of senior leaders of Hamas have recognised the 1967 borders, which implicitly is close enough to the recognition of Israel, but not quite. At previous committee meetings I made the point that when the peace process in Ireland was taking root, while we told the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin that violence had to cease, no one told them that they had to accept the constitutional position we would end up with. In other words they were in a position to adhere to their constitutional philosophy as they went into negotiations. At the end of negotiations, as with all agreements, compromises had to be made. Ultimately we had a referendum on the island, a new constitutional framework was created and we got agreement. I have said that at EU level and if we want to facilitate a major breakthrough, it is a matter for the EU to further evaluate at what stage we should facilitate the entry and engagement of people in talks. A fundamental point would be a cessation of violence and once the cessation is genuine and sustained, there is a basis for engagement. To make a point I have made already on other association agreements, while it is not for me to determine what the joint committee should do, we have association agreements with a number of countries in the region, including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. We have existing agreements and the European Union wants a full sub-committee on human rights on any new or enhanced agreements.

Deputy Joe Costello

Would such a subcommittee be introduced?

Deputy Micheál Martin

Yes.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for coming before the joint committee to participate in what has been a long and constructive discourse. I thank members for attending, all those who gave evidence, the staff of the Houses for their forbearance and patience and our many good friends from the press and in the Visitors' Gallery for attending the meeting. Tomorrow the joint committee will meet Ms Anne Herzberg, legal adviser to NGO Monitor.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.35 p.m. until 12.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 23 June 2010.