Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 May 2008

60th Anniversary of State of Israel: Discussion.

I apologise for the delay at the beginning of the meeting caused by a vote in the Seanad. Our second guest is Mrs. Miri Eisen, spokesperson for Israeli Government. She is accompanied by the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, His Excellency Dr. Zion Evrony, and Mr. Nadav Cohen, counsellor at the Israeli Embassy in Dublin. Mrs. Eisen is in Ireland to attend a number of events marking the 60th anniversary of the foundation of the State of Israel. We greatly appreciate her visit to the joint committee. She will speak to us on the theme of Israel today, covering its achievements and challenges. Mrs. Eisen acted as a special spokesperson for the Israeli Government during the war in Lebanon in July 2006. Subsequently she was appointed to the position of international media adviser to the Prime Minister. In that capacity she accompanied the Prime Minister to a number of important international meetings, including the Annapolis conference in the United States last November, which we all recognise was a very important international conference.

Developments in the Middle East, especially the relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians, have always been matters of great interest to this committee. Just two months ago I led a delegation from the committee to Israel and the Palestinian Territories to see for ourselves how the situation was developing. Our visit provided delegation members with a greater understanding of the many difficulties and complexities of the issues involved in the peace talks.

All that we saw and heard during our visit only reinforced our view that an enduring and just peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples based on a two-state solution was now more necessary than ever. The idea of a two-state solution as the official policy of what was then the EEC, now the European Union, was originally proposed by the late Brian Lenihan when, in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs, he was chairman of the foreign affairs Council when Ireland held the EU Presidency in the 1980s. I now ask Mrs. Eisen to address the committee.

Mrs. Miri Eisen

I thank the Chairman and the members for coming to listen. It is a great honour for me as a representative of the State of Israel to be here in the Irish Parliament. It is my first time in Ireland. It is an illuminating experience to meet the Irish, understand the different opinions, hear the different critical assessments of how they view our conflict and present who we are here in Ireland. I came in honour of the 60th anniversary. Sixty as an age both for people and for nations is a time of celebration and reflection. On our 60th anniversary Israel is very much in celebration and reflection. I would like to talk about how we see ourselves in 60 years and what we see as our main challenges along the road.

Israel is 60 and in many ways against all odds when established in 1948, has grown into a thriving modern Western democracy in the Middle East. We have in our state an immigrant state which is made up of such diverse people, societies and differences of opinion. We have majorities and minorities. We have people who come from around the world. We have within our communities a significant Israeli Arab minority comprising more than 20% of the population. We have Jews from all around the world and we continue to grow and change. For us it is amazing to see how over 60 years we have grown from a very small country of what was at the beginning 650,000 Jews to a population today that is 7 million strong. We can be proud of the immigration, of the arrival of the people, of building a state, of providing employment and education, of growing in such a way and of having today a modern Western economy, which is at the forefront of so many different aspects in the world.

I will remind members of a few of these things. I hope it will not happen here inside this building, but it happens in so many other places. Israel invented the cell phone. It rings everywhere for which some people are not so grateful. We are at the forefront of many of the applications to do with communications and computers. Most of the research and development centres in the world of high technology in communications and computers are all based in Israel. We are a very small country. We do not have any natural resources. We do not have oil. We do not have water like Ireland does. However, we have the human resource and I believe we use it to the utmost.

We are trying to find different solutions today to problems relating to water which is so important to us in the Middle East. I know it is an exception — I have been here for two days and it has not rained yet. Everybody tells me it rains in Ireland — it has not yet done so in my time here. For us in the Middle East — for Israel, for the Palestinians, for Jordan and all the countries around us — the water issue is such an important one. We are at the forefront of water technology and how we can utilise water. I know people in Ireland do not necessarily know arid areas. We are researching how to make arid areas cultivated. These are the types of technologies we are exporting to the world, to African countries and to Asian countries. We are trying to bring these better technologies and ideas out to the world.

It is also a time for reflection. Here we are and we are 60 years old. We are a strong, bold and incredibly opinionated country in our 60th year. Yet we still have very major challenges we are trying to address. I would like to pose them briefly for members of the committee and I would be very interested to hear the remarks and comments they make.

Israel in our 60th year is a society trying to face internal domestic issues in a slightly different way than we did in the past. Some of that has to do with the fact that it is not possible as a society that is only 60 years old to pertain to everything within it. We are an immigrant society. We have gaps within our society. We have an incredibly diverse society. I would like to point out three issues that Israeli domestic society is trying to address in our 60th year, to take out from under the table and put on the table to show how we want to see ourselves 20 or 40 years from now.

One such issue that is common to most Western countries is the growing gap between rich and poor. Israel has been in economic boom. We have amazing statistics which reveal how we are growing. Companies have bought into the idea of investment — foreign investment in Israel and Israeli investment outside. However, the rich are getting richer and sadly the poor are not necessarily coming out of poverty. Israel sees this as our biggest and most important domestic challenge. How can we take the wealth that comes with the economic boom and invest it in a country, especially in two main areas, education and employment? Which sectors of society are most in need of additional assistance to enable them to go forward?

This takes me to two additional issues for Israeli society. One is the growing gap in Israeli society between the majority, which is the Jewish majority, and the large minority of 20%, which is the Arab Muslim minority. How can we address that type of gap in both education and employment? How can we address their involvement in democracy and the way they are connected to the state with all of its different issues? This issue is being discussed in Israel. It is not an easy subject. However, what is important is that in our 60th year it is not being put under the table but is being addressed.

In addition to those gaps, we have in Israel a growing gap between the Israeli Jewish majority, who are non-practising Jews and the Israeli Jewish minority, who are Orthodox Jews. It is an issue we are also trying to address through dialogue and education. These are issues that every society has as it goes forward. There are differences within the society. These are issues which are on the table and which the Israeli Government and Israeli NGOs are trying to address. We have a growing civil society. It is part of who we are right now and hopefully it will start to make a big difference.

Most countries would feel that if these were the only issues on their governments' table or in general that their plates would be pretty full. What does one do when there are differences in terms of employment and education? How does one try to bring one's society closer together and bridge the different gaps? In its 60th year, Israel has two additional large challenges that we need to address. I am only talking about the main challenges. The first one I would like to talk about is that presented by Iran and the second is presented by the Palestinian issue. It is a beautiful sunny day in Ireland. Iran is a sovereign country of 70 million people whose President has openly and repeatedly called for the destruction of another sovereign country. That is not something that started this year. Iran is openly trying to achieve nuclear capability. One does not need to be a nuclear physicist to put two and two together. We cannot ignore the potential threat because Iran has directly and openly made a threat about the annihilation of the State of Israel. That is part of its policy. Iran does not call the country Israel, it calls it the Zionist entity. How can we stand by in silence in 2008, given all the history and watch the leader of a sovereign country call for the annihilation of another sovereign country? The Iranian issue is not an abstract one for us because we have been directly threatened. However, it is not one that is about Israel versus Iran because Iran openly threatens more than just Israel. It funds and is behind terrorist activities not only within the Middle East but also worldwide. Most members are aware of the funding of training in South American countries and in some European countries. I am glad in that sense that it is not considered to be a threat in Ireland, as this country is neutral. We believe strongly that nobody can be neutral on this question. People need to speak up about the matter, as we have been threatened directly. One of the ramifications of the Iranian issue concerns whether the Israeli Government should take money from the budget to build atomic shelters for everybody in Israel. That is a clear dilemma for the Israeli Government. I am Israeli; I have three children and live in Israel. I am a citizen and we are being directly threatened. If the government does not make a decision on the potential threat, the shelters will not be in place five or even ten years from now. On the one hand, how can we make that decision? On the other, how can we not do it?

We want to address the gaps to which I referred and there are other issues that also need to be addressed. Education and employment need investment, but one cannot do it all. Committee members are involved in a process where they understand the dilemmas on the table. That is just one dilemma we in Israel have when it comes to the Iranian threat and the world needs to speak out. This is not something that only concerns Israel. Yes, we are the only ones who have been directly threatened — openly and repeatedly — but Iran poses a threat to the entire Western world. We think everybody should speak out.

On its 60th anniversary, Israel is addressing, reflecting and trying to move forward on the Palestinian issue. I am not sure of how much people are aware of this. The Chairman spoke about the fact that the Irish were the first to speak up about the two-state solution. I am aware of what happened in the past and that this is a change. In our 60th year it is important that the Government and polity of Israel states clearly that we need a two-state solution. The Prime Minister of the State of Israel has openly stated time and again the need for an independent viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. He has also stated openly — not just to people behind the scenes — to the Israeli Parliament which is incredibly opinionated and critical of the government, that we understand and empathise with the Palestinians in their suffering and that we want to move forward.

For more than a year and half the Israeli Prime Minister has been in constant dialogue with the Palestinian President. They meet on a bi-weekly basis. They are not two individual figures working behind the scenes; they are the elected President of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Prime Minister. They meet, sit together and talk. I assume they do not talk about the weather in Ireland, they are trying to move forward. They have a joint vision which they are trying to bring down to the ground and talk in concrete terms about a two-state solution and what that means. They are trying to address the core issues that we know are at stake. They are talking about statehood, borders, Jerusalem and refugees. Each of the issues to which I referred is enough on its own to bring down governments in Israel and create controversy around the world. The two leaders of the two peoples directly involved in this conflict are in dialogue. They meet continuously, despite everything that is going on, including the rocket attacks against Israel, the Israeli responses against Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic jihad and attacks against innocent bystanders on both sides. It is clear that for our future we would like to see an independent viable Palestinian state alongside Israel in peace and security.

Israel is not going to assist to establish a Palestinian state alongside it that will be a terrorist base calling for our annihilation. We do not have to actively participate in building such a state. The Prime Minister of Israel sees it clearly as our mission — for ourselves, for our future and for our children and grandchildren — to have a two-state solution, as the Chairman said; Palestine alongside Israel, two countries, two entities that will lead to a flourishing Middle East. We have an amazing amount to bring into our neighbourhood and try to bring what we can. Our neighbourhood is not the Irish neighbourhood. Our neighbours are slightly different. We have Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. We have peace with Egypt and Jordan which is very important. We would like to see additional openings, but there is no question that for us the main issue is a resolution of the Palestinian issue and how to move forward with two states in the Middle East.

I thank Mrs. Eisen for squeezing so much into such a short time.

I welcome the delegation, the ambassador, Mrs. Eisen and Mr. Cohen. It was good to hear Mrs. Eisen's passionate and precise contribution. I concur with the Chairman that there is broad agreement in Ireland and that we would like to see a final settlement based on a two-state solution. It was interesting to hear Mrs. Eisen talk about other issues. I spent some time in Israel. When we talk about it, we invariably refer to the Palestinian conflict. However, Mrs. Eisen also referred to technical innovation, the gap between rich and poor and the differences between orthodox and non-practising Jews. It was interesting to hear those issues discussed because they are not ones on which we usually reflect.

My understanding from the briefing notes is that the Egyptian director of intelligence is in Israel to make proposals following discussions with Hamas and others. What hope is there of a settlement or agreement being reached by the end of the year? When I issue a statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it creates a lot of emotions on both sides. I acknowledge that there are two definite sides to the argument. I can understand how Israel feels it is under siege to a certain degree. Mrs. Eisen mentioned Iran, which is an important aspect. After the Iraq experience — it has been a catastrophe in terms of the number of deaths and destruction caused — the western world is not inclined to hone in on Iran. Perhaps we have failed to recognise what is happening there. However, it is important that we condemn terrorism wherever it happens. Hamas also wishes to see the destruction of the State of Israel.

The settlement policy is ongoing while the talks are being conducted. What is Mrs. Eisen's view in that regard? It is my understanding that as recently as mid-March the European Union called on Israel to cease the development of settlements. Public opinion in Israel is divided between following a hard-line policy and diplomacy. That in itself causes a difficulty. Is there a view that if we go down the diplomatic route it is a sign of weakness and could be to our cost? Could the delegation elaborate on the way that is expressed within Israeli society? If someone comes forward with a hard-line policy and they are successful there is a move to a more diplomatic line but if there is an attack on Israel the diplomatic policy is undermined.

Based on Mrs. Eisen's experience of being in Lebanon during the second war in July 2006 when she was a Government spokesperson, does she have a view on what is happening in Lebanon currently? My understanding is that Hezbollah has almost staged a coup and controls certain parts of Beirut. I would imagine that it is Iranian-backed. Does she have a view on the possible implications of that? Whenever Israel has gone into Lebanon it has proved exceptionally difficult for them but is Mrs. Eisen concerned about developments in the past week with the Syrian-Iranian backed Hezbollah move, particularly in Beirut?

I welcome the members of the delegation. I am glad to have the opportunity to exchange views. I was interested in the point that while the 60th anniversary is a celebration of 60 years of the existence of the State of Israel, it is also a time for reflection.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is prominent in Ireland, as I am sure the ambassador is aware. It is an issue that is of major concern to me and many members of the committee. I am fully aware that there are two sides to every conflict, and it is one I would wish to see a speedy resolution to, but I am also aware that it is an extremely complex issue in her country and also within the Palestinian territories because of the fractured political alliances. Israel's multi-party system does not make reaching an agreement any easier, particularly looking at the list of parties in our briefing notes.

An issue raised with me on a regular basis concerns the security barrier or the wall between Israel and the West Bank. Numerous constituents and various groups have contacted me about it. History has shown us that building physical barriers does not enhance relations between two states or countries. I would like to hear the delegation's opinion on the manner in which the wall or the security barrier has been built and the areas in which it has been built because further encroachment on Palestinian territories is a matter of great concern to me.

I am aware the Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, supports a two-state system, with two states working together in years to come as closest neighbours. The history of this island shows us that conflict resolution is possible if the right minds are brought around the table and people are willing to take leaps of faith but the building of the security barrier and the wall between Israel and the West Bank in particular is further strangling economic opportunities for the Palestinian people within the West Bank. Israel's population has increased from the original figure of 650,000 to more than 7 million in the past 60 years and it faced economic problems but people in a country must be given the ability to support themselves and not be dependent on hand-outs and international aid. That is crucial in terms of their dignity. The members of the delegation live in Israel and I am sure they are familiar with Israeli Arabs and people in the Middle East. Personal dignity is important to every person but particularly to those who believe they have been oppressed over a long period.

I cannot marry the idea of the continuance of the building of the barrier with a two-state programme. I accept there are major security issues that affect ordinary Israeli citizens on a day-to-day basis. We are politicians but I am talking about the ordinary person on the street in the West Bank and Gaza. I cannot understand how we can talk about a viable Palestinian state, however, if the intention is to strangle it. I would like to hear the opinions of the members of the delegation on that issue because it is a matter of grave concern to me, my constituents and to many Irish people. I realise it is not a black and white issue but I would like to hear their comments on it.

Regarding the Gaza Strip, with the media we have now we do not have the sense that it is thousands of miles away. The situation with Hamas is something that gravely concerns me. I am sure it is difficult for the delegation having such a regime on its doorstep but people tend to go to extremes out of desperation. The vote that increased substantially Hamas's representation within its own parliament was an indication of that. The people felt they had to look to the extreme for protection, and I am sure there is an element of that in Israel too. I would be interested to hear the delegates' views on the way this peace process can be brought to fruition with Hamas being in control of Gaza.

Some months ago we had reports of thousands of people fleeing across the border into Egypt to get the simple day-to-day items they required. I was interested to hear about the water technologies and so on in which Israel has been involved, which is welcome, but those technologies should be shared with Israel's nearest neighbours. That issue is of grave concern to me. The delegation has the support of members of this committee in trying to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict but I do not understand how a viable Palestinian state can be built if the intention is to strangle it.

On the additional settlements currently being built within the West Bank, looking at the dots on the map I do not understand how a settlement can be reached if numerous settlements are being built, particularly around the Jerusalem area and throughout the West Bank. Does the Israeli Government intend to stop further developments and settlements? I am aware there are regular contacts with its Palestinian counterpart but serious issues arise in that respect. I am merely voicing my opinion. I am not saying I am correct. There are two sides to this issue. I very much appreciate the delegation coming before the committee to discuss this matter and listen to our views.

I join in the welcome to Mrs. Eisin, Ambassador Evrony and Mr. Cohen. It is very valuable that we had such a presentation and it is important that we hear it on such an important year for the spokespersons of Israel, namely, the 60th anniversary. It is probably useful too for us interpreting the issue to have had such a strong presentation and in that regard I would like to make a number of points in the spirit of the best gift we can give to each other is one of being candid. It is important that we have these discussions and in a way that allows us to respect each other's views. Depending on how we approach the complex issues involved, there is no division in the committee in favour of trying to see, for example, peace in the Middle East. We are all in favour of that but a number of the points that were made are very important.

It is right to celebrate the 60th anniversary but we have just had a reference to Gaza. It is the 60th anniversary of Gaza as well and it is the 60th anniversary of Palestinians who left. I do not intend to open up something that would take a month to discuss but did they choose to go or were they forced? That debate has gone on in the newspapers here, with historians wheeled in on each side and different versions and forms of revisionism expressed. That is not my purpose.

I have been visiting Israel and Palestine since the 1980s and have been there approximately six times. I remember visiting the Knesset in the mid-1980s when a number of people in it were interested in developing a peace initiative. These people formed a sizeable bloc in the middle and included the distinguished current President of Israel. I recall a visit to the Knesset in 2005 where only one person represented that bloc. The political atmosphere at that time meant there was no political capital in speaking about peace. Instead, there were variations on the theme of defence. No doubt it was the circumstances that created such a political atmosphere.

Changes occur within countries. Today's presentation was valuable in that it presented information we do not hear enough about. There has been a transformation in Israel in terms of technology and innovation in, for example, irrigation. This has been based almost entirely on human intelligence and has occurred in a most inhospitable environment. This is important and it is important people who participate in that are allowed to live in peace and celebrate their country. However, it is equally important that matters are put in context.

I have heard other views, and I have heard them within Israel. I heard a view expressed in Hebron about Palestinians there, that they had 21 Arab countries to go to. People quoted the bible at me and said Israel was their land. I do not suggest that the particularly virulent and vicious group of settlers in Hebron are typical. They are not, but they are an extreme group. That is the reason they must be defended by such a large unit of the Israeli defence forces. Those they provoke, who live in incredibly difficult circumstances, are often removed for their own protection rather than the perpetrators of such actions being punished. When we were last in Israel — we visited Sterot and Ramallah at the time — a poll then indicated approximately 70% of the people of Israel were in favour of such negotiations as would bring peace, negotiations that would include Hamas.

I do not suggest there is not a mood for building peace. However, Mrs. Eisen may not have been entirely fair in her presentation. At all of the major talks — she was at the opening talks in Annapolis — and at the talks preceding the Annapolis talks, the different elements of the Palestinian problem were raised, including the last stage, Jerusalem. The talks included the issues of refugees and settlements. From the beginning, in all the talks, it was accepted that the settlements were illegal and that there would be no new settlements. It was understood also that there would not be any "thickening" of settlements. At the same time as the talks were going on, approval was given for additional housing in one area and beyond it and across the Jordan valley, with the suggestion that there may be even more. That is an exercise in bad faith. I am not interested in spending a month deciding whose bad faith is worse, but it is a serious issue.

On the other issues, when I was in Israel I was very impressed by the large number of humanitarian and human rights organisations. In the spring of 2005 I met 27 of these. These were people who were interested in Israel being characterised by a respect for humanitarian law and human rights. This brings me to a more serious issue, the rights of an occupying power. While I was last in Israel, there was a huge issue with regard to a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court. Mrs. Eisen will know as a result of Israel's proximity to the Lebanon that clear duties fall on an occupying power. The idea that the withdrawal that took place in 2005 absolves Israel from its responsibilities for Gaza is tenuous. There is no basis for that. The idea that the people are not fully dependent on Israel or that Israel can mitigate its legal responsibility on the basis of a lesser form of dependency does not impress me.

My colleague made a point about the wall. People accept that the wall has reduced terrorist attacks. However, it is not built on Israeli land. The Israeli Supreme Court has, at times, tweaked the boundaries of the wall. Whether it is a wall, a fence or a barrier is an academic question. With regard to areas around Bethlehem, Beth-Sahur and elsewhere, the wall snakes around different parts and makes impossible the agricultural practices of the people in those communities. Therefore, its impact is to make impossible the suggestion we would have two viable states. The wall does not help the atmosphere.

We are all in agreement there should be two independent viable states and I presume independent means with control over most of the functions of a state. Are these states to be contiguous or is it to be a set of cantons? I am in favour of two peaceful states living side by side. I also subscribe to the notion that Israel is entitled to its security and peace. I condemn people from any group who aim rockets at civilian populations. I hold the same opinion with regard to the Lebanon, which causes me some difficulty because it is very difficult at times to get any kind of fairness from certain people with regard to one's remarks. I condemned Hezbollah in southern Lebanon for aiming rockets at Israel, but I also condemned Israel for sending so many cluster bombs in the last days of the conflict.

With respect, I disagree with Mrs. Eisen about Iran. We have been brought to an incredible point by the Iraq war, with its hundreds of thousands of casualties. On that basis, there is no future for us in talks, whether speaking as members of a foreign affairs committee or as diplomats, if we accept the principle of pre-emptive strike. If a person believes in pre-emption outside of the Charter of the United Nations, we are not really talking about a shared discourse. We discussed the US-India nuclear agreement, for example, in this committee. The Indian Parliament held a view on it which would have established a number of reactors outside of the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. The IAEA has inspected and makes inspections in Iran and deserves our support for those inspections.

I will not go into the statements of Mr. Ahmedinijad. I do not agree with them and only deplore them. Nor will I go into the question of textual translations of what he did or did not say. What he said was unacceptable. There is a great danger in suggesting a pre-emptive strike against Iran, or in seeking to influence greater powers that support one's view to become involved or sanction such a strike. That would be a great danger to world peace and outside the frame of diplomacy. I visited Iraq twice before the wars. We should remember it was Iraq that invaded Iran before we choose what road to take.

I disagree with Mrs. Eisen's presentation on Iran and consider it dangerous.I am glad Mrs. Eisen is before the committee. I listened to what she had to say with great interest.

I was a member of the delegation which travelled to Israel a few months ago. It was the most depressing place I had visited for some time. Even by the delegation's own admission, there is no solution in hand. One of the advisers to the Israeli foreign Minister said all they could do was make the situation better. I do not see it getting any better because the Palestinians do not have the capacity to deliver a peaceful settlement and I do not think it will be possible to deliver on the ground whatever is agreed.

I stayed on an extra day and visited Hebron. I stood at a checkpoint for 20 minutes in the baking sun waiting for somebody to take my passport off the dashboard. If I had to wait for an hour or two hours, as Palestinians have to do on a daily basis, it would not have taken long to turn me from being a citizen into something else. There is the daily grind of 12 year-olds unnecessarily having to through checkpoints to get to school through a wall in Bethlehem. When I asked the class how many wanted to kill all the Israelis, all the pupils put up their hands. Unfortunately, the security forces are creating the next generation.

The issue for the delegation is not celebrating the 60th anniversary of the foundation of the State of Israel but celebrating its 100th anniversary because its enemies have to be successful only once. As an army colonel, I am sure Mrs. Eisen is well aware one cannot win all battles. That is our concern. We do not want Israel to lose a battle. Israel should exist but it is creating its own problems down the line. On the one hand, Mrs. Eisen talks about settlements and not continuing to come to an agreement. When one visits the area, the real world is entirely different. Settlements are being built hour by hour, day by day. As the delegation will be aware from our history, 400 years ago we had settlements. They created trouble 300 years later. Only recently has that problem stopped.

I have a few questions for Mrs. Eisen. What was the tactical thinking behind the dropping of the cluster bombs in Lebanon as Israeli troops were withdrawing? The enemy was not going to come back across the border. Will Israel help in the clean-up? The delegation may not be aware that a cluster munitions conference will take place in Ireland shortly. Will Israel send a representative to it? Military sources in America say cluster bombs do not serve a genuine military purpose. I would be interested to hear Mrs. Eisen's views on what is happening in Beirut and Hezbollah's takeover of the city.

I have read media reports on Israel's concerns about the allocation of Irish Aid money. I am a taxpayer and taxpayers are very concerned about how their money is spent. Is the delegation happy our money is going where it should on the West Bank and in Gaza? We were taken to the school in Bethlehem on a sunny day. I would prefer rain in Ireland over a sunny day in Bethlehem. Four of the 12 year old girls said their fathers were in prison and had been there a long time. On the other side, none of the students attending Bethlehem University had ever seen "Schindler's List". I said that if they watched it, they would understand why the Israelis took the matter very seriously when another country promised their annihilation because when someone had promised to do so previously, they came very close to carrying out their threat. One must understand where the Israelis are coming from.

I am interested in hearing the delegation's ideas on the cluster bomb issue. I thank Mrs. Eisen for her presentation. Her CV is impressive. If she is ever looking for a job, I am sure we would have a position for her.

Mrs. Miri Eisen

I thank the Senator.

However, the weather would get to her.

Mrs. Eisen mentioned that education and employment were crucial. That, of course, applies on both sides. We were in Sderot and saw the Kassam rockets. We also heard about the Grad rockets in Ashkelon. The fear was palpable. If there is not a peaceful solution, the conflict will never come to an end. Some day a peaceful solution will have to be found. These are small homemade rockets, yet the might of the world is coming down against them in terms of the armoury used from Gaza. Given that the rockets can land anywhere, people are terrorised. They cannot be well directed. This situation continues and the suicide bombers are atrocious. It is a horrible concept. We want to see an end being brought to all of this because one cannot live in peace and security otherwise.

We were told that Hamas was prepared to call ceasefire on a mutual and comprehensive basis, not just in respect of individuals who were regarded as terrorists. We are aware that a detailed agreement is still being considered in the background and that dialogue is still in progress. We also believe there is a need for international guarantors of the agreement. This is in line with some of the points made by Mrs. Eisen about the fear of not being recognised and that if one weakens one's position, one will not have an opportunity to recover. This is the time, on the 60th anniversary of the foundation of the State of Israel, to make the most intensive and best efforts. Attempts have been made to develop the joint understanding reached at Annapolis between Prime Minister Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas. It is extremely difficult but every effort must be made to solve the problem. We are aware that efforts are being made in the background and appreciate that dialogue is in progress. It must continue and must succeed; otherwise, as some members have said, the conflict will continue for many years to come.

Mrs. Miri Eisen

I thank members of the committee for their comments. They understand the situation and are willing to listen to our point of view. I realise there are also other points of view; after all, we live in the Middle East. One of the aspects I love about Israel is that all of the criticisms I hear in Ireland and at the committee I hear in the Israeli Parliament. I do not have to come to Ireland to hear them. Israel is a thriving democracy. We are the most opinionated people I can think of. In that sense we do not need to come before the committee to listen to the criticisms, we hear them at home, for which I am grateful. That there are different opinions stems from the fact that have a multi-party system. Everybody is represented and has a chance to express different opinions. There is no question that there are very hard issues and that they are complex.

From what I understood from the questions asked, there is great understanding in the committee that they are not black and white. I agree completely with the general sense of the committee that the Israelis and the Palestinians both need peace. However, coming from the Middle East, I am very realistic.It will not be easy. The resolution that will be arrived at is one that most Israelis and most Palestinians will hate. The question is whether they will accept it. The issue of acceptance has to do with the fact that we as a democracy will look at it in the silent majority in Israel, which I spoke about earlier as a policy that is going through changes. As one of the members of the committee mentioned, 70% of Israelis are ready for a two-state solution, and in a democracy 70% is a clear-cut majority. I accept that 30% is against but in a democracy that is not too bad; it is only 30%. As to whether it can be implemented, all members have seen the extremes on both sides. There is no question that is a major challenge but we must try to go forward. That sense of hope is something that came out in the debate in a clear way.

The dialogue going on is not insignificant. In that sense it is being belittled somewhat. The Prime Minister and the President of a state are meeting bi-weekly for hours on end. The Prime Minister's media adviser for a year and a half in all those meetings would come in after they had been sitting for two hours. One smoked cigars and the other smoked cigarettes, but I do not think they were talking about which cigar brand is better. They have been going somewhere with the meetings and I have full hope that what they come up with will be something at which all of us will be able to look. It is important also that at the end this agreement is arrived at between the two involved parties because all the difficulties in trying to implement it will mainly affect all the different countries. We aspire also to see that Palestinians stand alongside us and that they will be able to implement it.

I wish to give the committee some specifics. Israeli Government policy during the 1980s and the 1990s supported many settlements. The Israeli Government policy for the past five years has changed. I ask members to please be aware of that and understand it. I agree there are facts on the ground and those are facts of which both sides are aware. It is not a question of our standing up now and saying everything will come out. We must also look at what Israel chose to do in August and September 2005 not just in terms of what happened in Gaza but the aspect of Israeli policy deciding to remove 18 settlements and move out 10,000 settlers because of a decision made by the Government. The people there did not want to leave.

The problem in the West Bank is much more complex. I go to Hebron, I am an Israeli citizen. Those are the extremes in Israeli society also. It does not make any of us comfortable and it is something that must be addressed by both sides. I say by both sides but at the end we will have to determine if we were compromised or if the other side was compromised and how to arrive at a mutual agreement. That will not be easy but we, as a Government, do not invest in any of the settlements.

Is Israel a land of the rule of law? I want to hope so. I want to state clearly that in September 2005 a Government decision was made that moved 10,000 people from their homes. That is the rule of law and if we make a decision on the issue of settlements we go forward with it. The Prime Minister of Israel does not only talk to the international community and to the Palestinians. He also talks to his own constituents. It is important that we agree on the fact that dialogue is allowed with all sections of Israeli society, not just with the Palestinians.

The issue regarding the settlements and the illegal outposts is in dialogue. If I can sit down and talk with Mahmoud Abbas I can also sit down and talk with the most extreme of the settlers and in the end we have to arrive at some agreement that will be acceptable. We must do these things through dialogue, not through the use of force. We have shown that not only in Gaza when we took at all the settlements but also in the West Bank. I accept it does not happen all the time but we can forcibly remove illegal outposts.

We have changing policies. They are part of where Israel is now. We are talking about a viable, independent state. The fence that was built from 2002 is not just an important part of that because a fence can be moved. It has been moved by order of the Supreme Court of Israel and all of it can be moved when we arrive at a line that we agree upon but that fence is allowing the dialogue. I want members to be clear on that because if a single suicide bomber gets through, that is 100% failure for Israel but it will also stop the current dialogue. It is uncomfortable. In certain aspects it makes life virtually impossible but nobody died from it. It is preventing innocent people from dying and allowing the dialogue to continue. A passive measure like a fence, which can be moved, is much better than many other points of friction.

The economic issue that arose earlier is at the core of the question. The former Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, is the special envoy for the economic development of the Palestinian authority. We agree with the members. Not only that but a group of 60 Israeli investors are trying to invest now, together with the world community. Amazingly, with all of the mistrust and suspicion, the Palestinians do not necessarily want the Israeli investments and I cannot blame them. There is an enormous amount of mistrust on both sides but there is willingness on the Israeli side and to bring in the international community to develop a viable economy. There is no question about that but a viable, independent, contiguous state must have a viable economy.

We also need education. A member spoke about raising the hand and killing all Israelis. That does not happen just from a fence. In Bethlehem there is a strong portion which is a wall but as members know from the statistics, 93% of the separation barrier is a fence and 7% is a wall but I have never seen a picture in the media of anything other than the wall. It is ugly. It is very high. Nobody died from it but education does not just come from that. Education is something which is at the core of the issue and we both need to invest in that respect. In Israel we try to invest in it and I do not know if we do well enough in that regard. If members heard some of the settlers in Hebron they would wonder about the education of Israelis and I agree. There can be extreme education on both sides but in general in Israel we are educating on the idea of a two-state solution. If we do not educate towards peace and it comes suddenly it will not go anywhere, so to speak.

Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon are such major challenges it is not correct that I should try to address them all now. I would just say it is too early for us to be able to assess the implications of what is happening in Lebanon but it is something which is of concern.

Perhaps I was misunderstood. Israel is at the forefront of diplomatic sanctions. Israel believes that the only resolution to stop the Iranians from going down the nuclear path is through diplomatic measures. We have stated that repeatedly. We do not want to get to the point where there is another option. We think clearly that economic sanctions, the diplomatic sanctions, which are measures that should be done by the world, are the way to stop Iran. We have never said anything else. It is what is presented by the Prime Minister, both in closed and open arenas time and again but, amazingly, we are always asked when we intend to attack. When did Israel ever state that? We have stated clearly, behind the scenes and publicly, that our policy is to get the world to put those economic and diplomatic sanctions in place. We believe they can be exceedingly effective in stopping Iran's quest to go down the nuclear path.

Obviously the world is more complex. With the Iranian response and what has happened in Iraq we are all looking at the Middle East. A nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi Arabia, and a nuclear Saudi Arabia means a nuclear Egypt. A nuclear Egypt means that all the other countries want to go there. Do we want to see that type of escalation in the Middle East? What would that do to the economies of the countries in the region? I raise that because I felt on that issue I was misunderstood. There is no way whatsoever we would ever be talking about any option.

The atmosphere of no terror attacks does not mean they have not stopped trying to attack. In the end it is the combination of our passive measures such as the fence and our other active measures that bring about hardships that go hand in hand with trying to build a viable economy and engaging in dialogue. It is complex but we must do everything together to try to go forward.

To refer to one of the last comments the Chairman made, as Israelis we all agree that for us on our 100th anniversary, we are not going anywhere. We are a very strong nation and every decade we grow more so. We come out of conflict in a stronger way. We are more cohesive. Our economy is booming. Despite where we have been for the past eight years we know how to go hand in hand together but resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a way that is compatible to both sides, not as an Israeli imposition but that is compatible to both sides, is key for us and for them, but I am here representing the Israeli Government. I thank the members for their interesting and illuminating comments.

I thank the members of the delegation for coming before the committee. Their contribution was interesting. We thank them sincerely for what they told us about Israel's achievements and its position today. My colleagues in the committee will join me in wishing you and all those involved in the peace talks, on both sides, every success. We hope a viable solution will emerge before the end of the year that will allow the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to live in two states, side by side, in peace and security. I thank the ambassador and Mr. Cohen for accompanying you. We have seen how peace in Northern Ireland has opened the way for new economic opportunities there. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would also open the way to an enormous peace dividend for all the people of the region. Thank you.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.31 p.m. and adjourned at 5.40 p.m. sine die.
Barr
Roinn