JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Jan 2009

Situation in Gaza: Discussion with Iranian Ambassador.

Chairman

I welcome His Excellency Ebrahim Rahimpour, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mrs. Fatemeh Ardaneh, Mr. Hamid Reza Khodabashi and Mr. Amirkhalili. The ambassador agreed to come before us today to discuss the current situation in Gaza. I wish to point out to members that he is accompanied by an interpreter and I ask them to bear this in mind when posing questions. They should afford the ambassador the time to wait for the translation to be completed.

The committee has shown a deep interest in Israel-Palestine relations for many years. The recent Israeli offensive in Gaza and the shocking number of deaths among the people living there have been condemned by the committee in recent weeks. Our guests will be aware that the Israeli ambassador, His Excellency Dr. Zion Evrony and Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri, Head of Mission, General Delegation of Palestine to Ireland, came before the committee on 13 January to discuss the situation in Gaza. A full and frank debate on the issue took place at that meeting.

In the interim, unilateral ceasefires were declared by Israel and Hamas. The committee welcomed that development. I welcome the appointment by President Obama of the United States of Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. Senator Mitchell's experience, wisdom, patience and candidness make him eminently suitable for the task ahead. The Senator has had considerable experience in Ireland and was extremely helpful to the parties involved in the various negotiations that took place here.

Yesterday's renewed bombing of Gaza by Israel, following an attack by militants on an Israeli border patrol which resulted in the death of an Israeli soldier, highlights the fragility of the situation and the need to consolidate the ceasefires and support Egyptian efforts to find a mediated settlement. A number of key issues have been identified in this regard. There is a need to end the siege of Gaza, to open border crossings and to alleviate the terrible and ongoing suffering of the people there. There is also a need for the Palestinian people to speak with a clear voice and to find a way to circumvent their current disunity. It will also be necessary to stop any further flow of weapons into Gaza to the military wing of Hamas.

None of the goals to which I refer will be easy to achieve. The Palestinian people require the support of other countries in the region in order to establish a single, viable, secure and economically sound Palestinian state. We also want to see a similar state for Israel. It has been suggested in some quarters that Iran is being unhelpful in this regard. The committee would be interested in hearing the ambassador's views on the current ceasefires; the role of Egypt as a mediator; the smuggling of weapons into Gaza; Israel; the Palestinian Authority; and Hamas.

I wish to advise our guests that whereas members of the Houses enjoy absolute privilege in respect of utterances made in committee, witnesses do not enjoy such privilege. Accordingly, caution should be exercised, particularly with regard to references of a personal nature.

I invite His Excellency Ebrahim Rahimpour, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to make his presentation before taking questions from members of the committee.

H.E. Mr. Ebrahim Rahimpour

In the name of God the Great, the Merciful, I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to make a presentation to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am proud to represent a great and intelligent nation and country the civilisation of which has lasted 3,000 years and which occupies a strategic geographical location and which follows a peaceful and saviour religion.

The largest minority community of Jews in the Middle East lives in Iran, with a population of 8,000. Like the Christians and Zoroastrians in Iran, they have an independently elected representative from the community within the Iranian Parliament.

Today, I wish to discuss 60 years of oppression within a country and the lack of any solution for the owners of this land. It seems there is a new country being built on the ruins of the houses of the true people of this land. On the occasion of the 90th anniversary of Irish Parliament last week, I was deeply moved by stories about the struggle by the Irish people to determine their own fate. I also heard how they tasted oppression, poverty, colonialism and famine in their struggle for independence. On foot of these experiences, the Irish have a deep understanding of the Palestinian situation and the suffering of the Palestinian people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the occupation of Palestine, the oppression that has occurred and the illegal behaviour of the Zionist regime towards the Palestinians in the area over many decades is a top priority on the agenda of foreign policy. The serious situation of Palestine, particularly in the Gaza Strip, the shameless massacres, crimes against humanity and the slaughter of non-civilians, half of whom include women and children, is a clear indication of genocide by this regime. Closing the borders and preventing the people of Gaza from obtaining what they require to satisfy their most basic needs in the past 18 months has converted the area into a large prison and the massacre and suffocation carried out over 22 continuous days by this regime lacks any sort of reason.

Is Gaza the last tragedy? These crimes are repeating themselves and follow the massacres of Deir Yasin, Sabra and Shatila. Not long ago the regime to which I refer committed crimes in Beit Hanoun and it has now committed another slaughter in the Gaza Strip. Immediately after these crimes there are talks of permanent peace. Are repeated public massacre and genocide of people of Gaza the ways of achieving permanent peace in the Middle East? Are these criminal acts the cause of increase of historical abhorrence among families, nations and religions within the area? Are they not delaying peaceful coexistence?

According to the United States constitution, the Americans are capable of acquiring arms and using them to defend themselves in case of an emergency where the national security system is disabled. Is it not the time for the global community to start helping the Palestinians so they do not have to defend themselves with their fists and stones? Is there any justice existing between these two models of side by side states? How do the governments that always claim human right issues stay quiet? Are these the human rights they are trying to implement? Why is the global community unable to run the mechanisms implemented by international organisations preventing this human catastrophe? The UN Security Council has issued more than 30 different resolutions, which this regime has ignored one after the other. The global community must stand responsibly against these human catastrophes and end these crimes.

When speaking about democracy and human rights, it is also notable that some countries call this oppressive regime the best model of democracy run in the Middle East. Although there is no capital punishment existing in their law, in their opinion every Palestinian is a terrorist and deserves capital punishment. There is no difference between children, women, doctors or reporters. This is while they are complaining to the Islamic Republic of Iran to change their law regarding the execution of murderers and top criminals. The distinguished members will also be aware that this level of punishment exists in some states of the US and the US Administration has no intention to change it.

Are human rights more ignored in Tibet by the communist Government of China or in Gaza by the democratic Government of, as some say, the best democracy of the Middle East? Unfortunately, human rights are sometimes tools used for political gain. This regime has tried to divert from its internal problems and challenges among its own Cabinet by killing the public and defenceless Palestinians and to move the attention elsewhere. It has also delayed the Palestinian elections on 9 January.

The massacre of innocent people, attacking the buildings covered by the UN and also killing and injuring the aid forces are clear to the entire world. All these barbaric acts discredit the global community again as they commit another massacre whenever they feel it is necessary and pay no attention to international agreements and declarations. A perfect example of this is the use of phosphoric bombs by this regime in targeting the UN's buildings. Mr. Mohammed El Baradei claimed in a recent interview that Israel has committed a crime against humanity by surrounding Palestine and by the use of depleted uranium in residential areas.

We need to discuss this issue and the fact that we are responsible in front of humanity and history and need to answer someday. We should not allow these criminal acts to be ignored. The Zionist regime must stand responsible for these inhumane actions and answer to the international associations. This regime must compensate for oppressing and attacking the innocent people of Palestine. The top positions of the regime must be brought to international courts just like Saddam Hussein or Milosevic.

I again thank the committee and its members for this invitation. I would appreciate any comments or questions they might have.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I thank the ambassador and his staff for attending. Following the contributions of the witnesses who appeared before the committee last week, I said I was depressed but this submission goes further. I made the proposal for the ambassador to appear in the context of trying to see how Iran could assist in developing a peace process in the Middle East and what role it could play. There is little in the ambassador's submission to assist in developing the peace process. I will park his contribution and deal with a few issues because the letter of invitation to him referred to the situation in Gaza and the broader scenario in the Middle East, which I hope he will address.

It has been claimed Iran has supplied or is supplying weapons to Hamas in Gaza. Will the ambassador comment on that? How does his government view Hamas? It has been reported that the Iranian President has said Israel should be wiped off the map and a denial has not issued. He has also denied the Holocaust took place. What is the ambassador's view on this?

I refer to the nuclear programme, one of the main issues associated with Iran. It is claimed the uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes. If so, will Iran agree to International Atomic Energy Agency officials inspecting and examining at nuclear installations? Many countries have sought such access but it has not been forthcoming. What is the view of the ambassador on that?

The committee is greatly concerned about human rights. Is apostasy a crime? I am concerned about the suppression of human rights for religious minorities, including the Baha'i community, and the intolerance of minorities. What is the ambassador's view on that? Following the last presidential election, many ambassadors were recalled by the Iranian authorities. Does Ambassador Rahimpour's predecessor still work in the diplomatic corps or where is he?

The new American President, Barack Obama, has stretched out the hand of friendship to Iran. What is the ambassador's view on this? Does he believe there can be dialogue between Iran, the United States and the European Community with a view to bringing peace to the Middle East area? I believe Iran has a crucial role to play in this regard.

Deputy John Deasy

Will the Chairman explain the format of this meeting? Will he allow the ambassador answer questions after one or two speakers as opposed to after five or six?

Deputy Alan Shatter

That would be a good idea to prevent everyone repeating the same thing and would help develop a dialogue.

Chairman

Perhaps we could take his response after three speakers.

Deputy John Deasy

Three would be too many. It should be after one or two.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Perhaps we could take his response after Deputy O'Hanlon puts his questions. Otherwise we will end up with a long discourse.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I have some very different questions to raise.

Chairman

We can agree to do it that way. Deputy Higgins follows Deputy O'Hanlon so perhaps we will take their questions and then the ambassador can respond.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

I thank the ambassador for attending our meeting. I was a little disappointed in his contribution because it was very partisan. We condemn the violence, the rockets fired by Hamas and the disproportionate violence inflicted on the people of Gaza by Israel. We are also very concerned about the suppression of ordinary people in Gaza in terms of their rights.

One concern for me about the conflict in the Middle East is that I see the same thing happening there as we suffered for decades, or perhaps centuries, where the people in conflict just focus on the politics of the last atrocity. In other words, if one side commits an atrocity, it is an excuse for the other side to take up violence again. We suffered a lot, as mentioned by the ambassador. Now, when we look back at that suffering, we see most of it was unnecessary and could have been avoided had those who were in conflict the vision to look beyond the last atrocity and consider a settlement that would ensure each community's rights would be respected.

It is important for the people in the Middle East and the rest of the world that those countries and neighbours live in harmony. It is important that the Palestinians have their own country, and equally important that Israel and the people of Israel have their country. There is now an opportunity, with the new regime in the United States and the appointment of Senator George Mitchell as envoy to the Middle East, to achieve this.

We have first-hand experience of conflict and it is only in the past decade the issue here has been resolved. Senator Mitchell was a very fair-minded man and spent two years working to resolve the conflict here. He showed great patience towards both sides in the conflict and gradually worked his way through the difficulties and sowed the seeds for a successful outcome to the problem of Northern Ireland. It is in the interest of every country in the Middle East, including Iran, to support him and have the vision to look beyond who was guilty of the last atrocity and see a future where all countries can cohabit the bit of land we have on this earth. They must see that violence is futile and, as the European Union learnt after 1,000 years of self-destruction, that peace is the way forward for everybody.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I welcome the opportunity of exchanging views with the ambassador of Iran. This is one of the rare opportunities we get to put questions. I will deal with the ambassador's remarks but will comment briefly on the issue raised earlier. We will, perhaps, have an opportunity at another meeting to discuss the matters raised by Senator Norris, but it is important this committee supports international law and investigations into breaches of it. For that reason, I will support the proposal, when it comes to us, for an investigation of war crimes on both sides in the recent conflict.

It is important that non-state actors are as bound as state actors by international law. For that reason, the release of rockets at civilian populations, for example, by the military wing of Hamas at the population of Sderot, is clearly a war crime. Equally, the other side must also be investigated. The question for the ambassador is where he stands on such an investigation.

On the other side, we must question the response of the Israeli military in terms of civilian protection, proportionate response and clear breaches. For example, the representative of the United Nations Relief Works Agency supplied four days in advance the co-ordinates of 23 institutions in Gaza. These institutions were hit, involving the death of children. Let us have the investigation. I would not have much respect for those who sought to obstruct such an investigation. It is a matter of being fair.

With regard to the points I have made on international law, I do not want any comments about my moral outrage being reserved for one side or the other. It is in support of international law.

When this meeting is over, civilians and children in Gaza will only be getting about 10% of the trucks of humanitarian aid that are available. Approximately 58 trucks will go into Gaza whereas 580 to 600 are needed. The aid is available, but cannot be delivered or distributed. This is an issue. Now that everything is said and people have waited for people to change their positions, these civilians should not have to wait. The crossings that are necessary should be opened. Does the ambassador support the extension of the temporary ceasefire leading to a permanent ceasefire and the immediate opening of the crossing to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid? Does he agree it is an international issue, ideally for an agency of the United Nations? However, it will have little chance to investigate, let us say, breaches of the fourth Geneva Convention and other instruments because the United States will probably use its veto at the Security Council.

I wish to deal with some specific issues where the ambassador might help us with regard to future discussions in this committee. I refer to issues such as the nuclear one. I might have a slightly different view on that issue to some members of the committee. Mr. Hans Blix spoke at a meeting of this committee and information has also been supplied by Mr. El Baradei. My question is simple. Is it the Iranian position that if there was an international mechanism of supply of fissile material or enriched material under the control of an international agency, the Iranian Government would change its approach to enhanced nuclear capacity?

The ambassador need not give the answer now but it would be useful if he supplied details of the offers that were made by the Iranian Government to the United States and to the European Union and details of the response to these offers. I am thinking particularly of the offer made to the European Union on 30 January 2006. My question is whether Iran is serious about going down the road of international scrutiny of nuclear enrichment. My memory of the discussion at that time was that Iran said if it was guaranteed security, in other words if the threat of regime change was removed, it could discuss international mechanisms of control of nuclear material. I do not know whether that is true.

Turning to more practical matters which we discussed previously with representatives of the Iranian Embassy, members of this committee will have been contacted by representatives of the Baha'i community, seven of whom are in prison in Tehran. It has been communicated to us that there is a real difficulty about representatives and their families contacting them and about their legal representative contacting them and so forth. This is not a matter of state as we had this issue before with other countries. This is an issue of fundamental rights as are other issues we discussed in the past such as the treatment of the gay community. However one translates it, whether one translates it as removing the Zionist entity from the pages of history or whether one interprets it as attacking the existence of the state of Israel, the remarks of President Ahmadinejad have been destructive of the capacity for dialogue.

Is there a real prospect that in new circumstances, with new administrations in the United States and elsewhere that are anxious to have a regional approach towards peace, and we must remember that a nuclear-free region would have responsibilities for both sides in the present conflict, is there a possibility that Iran would use its influence on the political direction of Hamas and Hizbollah in such a way as would lead to the achievement of a viable contiguous Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders and a state of Israel that would be de facto accepted as entitled to live in security and peace?

H.E. Mr. Ebrahim Rahimpour

With the Chairman's permission I will speak in my own language and my translator will translate for the committee.

I thank the committee members for their comments. Such comments and opinions are very important to us and our colleagues and we are paying attention to them. At the same time we note that in this very short time all the different problems of the world cannot be discussed. I hope we can meet at a future date to discuss the variety of issues which have been raised here today. In a few days we will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of revolution in Iran. Despite all the problems existing in the international community, we are happy we have reached the 30th anniversary of the revolution.

We are stronger than before. For eight years all the international powers, including the United States and Israel, helped Saddam Hussein in Iraq to fight Iran and tried to wipe Iran off the map. However, Iran was not wiped out and the committee is claiming that Iran has influence far beyond its borders and it considers Iran to be a near-neighbour, side by side with Palestine. This an important and interesting point. Iran is about 70 times the size of Palestine and about 20 times the size of Ireland. Iran's distance from the Palestinian border is approximately 2,000 km. All the claims about weapons being smuggled into the Palestinian borders, considering the Israeli controls, are difficult to imagine and are a little obnoxious. Is Iran that strong? The ship with humanitarian aid from Iran containing flour and rice has been detained for a month at the Israeli border. The other side of the story concerns Egypt and relations between Iran and Egypt have been so-so in recent years. Is Egypt helping us to send the weapons into Palestine? All of these are only advertisements and propaganda to divert the real problem to somewhere else. There are 1,400 Palestinian people dead compared with 15 Israelis. Do these Palestinians have any special weapons to fight the Israelis? Whatever they have been trying to build with their own hands, can they be called factory-made weapons? This is not the case.

Iran's influence in Palestine is only political, cultural and religious. When Saddam Hussein was removed from Iraq, our Sunni brothers claimed that Shia Muslims were gaining strength in the area. It was the intention to increase the conflict between the Shia and Sunni divisions within the Muslims in the area. Are people living in Gaza Shia Muslims? It is good to consider the cultural differences within the area and the different countries. Which Sunni Government has supported the Gaza people in the last war? The propaganda is very different from the reality. We are honoured that we can give support to the Palestinian people. We are not embarrassed to say that we will help them at any stage to reduce their suffering.

This conflict has been continuing for 60 years. The revolution has only lasted 30 years. What existed before that? The problem comes from elsewhere, not from Iran. Mr. Arafat went through all the war and peace processes with Israel. At the end of his life he was under house arrest and was in fear of his life. Hence the propaganda suggests every day there is a different terrorist. Today it is Hamas. Yesterday it was Arafat and it will change again tomorrow. In their opinion whoever resists will become a terrorist. Perhaps we should wait a little while until the people who have passed away are buried and the injured people in hospitals are cured. Then we can start the talks of peace. What is this method that they will start with a war, killing a huge number of people and immediately after they want to start speaking about peace? It is not our will but this regime will be wiped out by its own actions.

Members can look at the map of Palestine to see how it has changed in recent years, how much of the land belonged to Palestine before and how it has been reduced over the years. Just like Ireland we are suffering from the situation. Murder, oppression and massacres are enough. According to the documentation we have from the United Nations from 50 years ago, our country believes in one state. Why are we breaking the Berlin Wall and at the same time new walls are being built in Palestine? This is no justice. We believe in having one government over the area. In another 60 years with this situation nothing will be resolved. It does not make a difference whether the Islamic Republic of Iran is in charge or the former king. This route is not one that will resort to anybody.

When Saddam Hussein attacked Iran and captured part of the country, that was the time that they started talking about peace in Iran. We refused to do so at the time. We gained back the land that belonged to us and then we started the peace negotiations. With 1,400 dead could there be any talks of peace on the table? I am pleased to know that the Irish know what violence from conflict means. I congratulate Ireland on the achievement of the Good Friday Agreement in putting an end to the conflict and on moving ahead to resolve the common problems. I hope the same experience Ireland has undergone can be used by the oppressor regime in the area. However, I believe these people are not for peace. I am sure the Chairman would like to wrap up this issue and for it not to continue for so long. I wish to comment on a few other issues I mentioned today.

Regarding the dialogue between Iran and America with the election of President Obama, the situation has not changed. Dr. Ahmadinejad wrote to President Bush but never received a reply. Before 11 September 2001, Dr. Khatami, the former President of Iran, started the dialogue of civilisations within the United Nations. Just a few months later President Bush called Iran part of the "axis of evil". We think the problem comes from elsewhere. We are ready for talks and for logic. However, we feel the main problem was the former President of the United States, President Bush. That problem is solved now and we hope to continue with better dialogue in the future. After eight years we can sit down and pass a judgment on President Bush. It is still too early to do the same for President Obama. Dr. Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, has sent a congratulation note to President Obama and we are still awaiting a reply. We are all waiting to see what President Obama means by change in the Middle East.

The issue of the relationship between the atomic agency and Iran is a huge one. The various aspects of the issue exceed the capacity of this committee's talks. We do not think this issue is as serious as the propaganda would lead one to believe. The oppression of Palestine is a problem that has continued for 60 years without being resolved. By contrast, Iran is under continuous pressure to resolve a small problem that has recently arisen there. The IAEA has already performed many inspections in Iran. The volume of staff members it has sent to Iran in recent times has been remarkable. Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Our doors are always open to the IAEA inspectors to inspect our facilities in any way they may see fit.

However, Israel has not signed the treaty. It has never allowed an hour of inspection by the IAEA within its borders. We have been negotiating with the IAEA on various inspection issues for over five years. Mr. Solana has been continuously negotiating with his Iranian counterpart, Mr. Jalili, over recent times. Iran's influence does not result from its atomic capacity. We do not have that power. If power could derive from the ownership of atomic energy, the USSR would not have fallen. If security could be achieved by having atomic bombs, Israel would be the first country to achieve security for itself.

Iran is not looking for atomic weapons. It is in favour of the peaceful use of atomic energy. Iran produces approximately 5 million barrels of oil every day, 3 million of which are used internally within the country. The members of the committee are aware of the problems in Ireland and other countries as a consequence of the current energy crisis. Iran will face the same problems in the not too distant future. We have no choice but to try to use atomic energy for electricity and other uses in the country. The development of this technology in Iran was agreed by the United States, Germany and France during the reign of the Shah of Iran. The facility that was offered to Iran when the former king was in power is not being offered to us now. We have tried to start to conduct our own research to develop atomic energy in Iran, but we are being prevented from achieving anything. We even have problems with our own energy production. People in Bushehr sometimes have to wait for fuel for many days. Certain issues in that regard need to be negotiated.

We agree with what the Chairman has said about the guarantee. The international community needs to give a guarantee to all the countries of the world that they can work to obtain atomic energy for peaceful uses. It should not be limited to a number of specified countries. While we have done our best on the atomic energy issue, there is room for further negotiation with other interested parties. The European Union has spoken about the need for trust between it and Iran. A couple of days ago, it deleted the MKO, a terrorist organisation that is fighting against the Iranian regime, from its list of terrorist organisations. Is this an example of the trust the Union was talking about? Hamas, which has been fighting for many years for the freedom of its country, is considered to be a terrorist group. However, the MKO, which helped Saddam Hussein to attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, is considered to be a group of freedom fighters.

I wish to speak about human rights. Iran has been free from a dictatorial system for 30 years. It has been walking the route of democracy since then. There have been approximately 30 national elections during that time. The number of newspapers being published in Iran at this time cannot be compared with any of the other Arab states. I am sure the committee agrees that human rights are not being completely upheld anywhere in the world. Talks, dialogue and negotiation are needed if the countries of the world are to have an impact on each other's policies.

I was asked about the Baha'i religion. As far as I am aware, certain faiths are considered to be recognised religions in some European countries, including Belgium and Greece. The recognised religions under the Iranian constitution are Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. All other religions, philosophies or political routes are not considered to be officially recognised by the Iranian Government. People in Iran who have the Baha'i faith as their personal religion do not have any problems. They can be employed in the university sector in Iran. They work in various Government sectors. Regardless of who they are or what religion they follow, including whether they are Shia who form the majority in Iran, people will be arrested and prosecuted for the crime they have committed. They may belong to the Christian, Baha'i or Muslim faiths but, depending on the crime they commit, they will be arrested and brought before the courts.

Regarding the issues raised about the gay community, Iranian legislation does not have provisions on this matter. This issue in Iranian society is not in accordance with the law, nor is it accepted within society. We regard it as a personal problem which exists in many societies and would not agree to officially recognise this group in Iran. We agree with Deputy O'Hanlon regarding the suffering a conflict could cause in the country. While I may have overlooked some of the points members have raised, I will be pleased to respond later if members recap on them.

Deputy Darragh O’Brien

I welcome the ambassador and his staff. I will try not to go over some of the ground covered by the ambassador in his responses. He raised the issue of capital punishment and the death penalty, correctly noting that the death penalty is in force in other countries, including the United States. This is unfortunate and, as the ambassador will be aware, capital punishment is outlawed in Ireland and we speak out against it strongly.

I realise I am moving from the issue of Gaza. Recently, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, wrote to his Iranian counterpart, Mr. Mottaki, raising a number of concerns about the use of the death penalty in Iran, including the increasing number of what are described as moral crimes which carry the death penalty. In the past month, the media have reported that two men were stoned to death in Iran for adultery. The manner in which the death penalty is implemented, including hanging people from cranes, public executions and stonings, is abhorrent to me and all members. It has also been reported recently that the death penalty has been passed on minors, that is, children aged under 18 years. I am aware of a statement by the Iranian Parliament that such executions should not take place. Will the ambassador clarify whether Iranian law precludes the imposition of death sentences on minors? Is the death penalty still being passed on minors? What are the ambassador's views on the death penalty?

I disagree with the use of the death penalty in many other countries. While not singling out Iran, I specifically raise the issue of moral crimes and the fact that religious courts in Iran appear to pass death sentences for transgressions which do not appear to be crimes in Iranian law.

I was interested in the ambassador's reply on Iran's support for Hamas in Gaza and what, if any, military support and weaponry it has provided to the organisation. To be clear on this matter, the joint committee, Government and all political parties in the Oireachtas have strongly condemned the disproportionate action Israel has taken in Gaza and previously in Lebanon. Members have been deeply engaged on this issue and have condemned in the strongest terms the use of cluster munitions and firing of rockets into Israel. The ambassador appeared to indicate that Iran does not supply weapons to the Gaza Strip. Is that correct?

The ambassador referred to his country's war with Iraq on several occasions. Iran's influence on Iraqi Shia militia is increasing. What is the ambassador's views on Iran-Iraq relations? How will Iran deal with Iraq in future?

I would be most interested to learn the ambassador's view on Fatah and President Mahmoud Abbas. It has been reported that Iran has taken a pro-Hamas and anti-Fatah position on the basis that the destabilising of Gaza would have a knock-on effect on the West Bank and it would prefer the Palestinian President to be a member of Hamas rather than Fatah.

Senator David Norris

I also welcome the ambassador. I have had the opportunity to visit Iran which is a very beautiful country with an ancient and remarkable civilisation. In particular, I remember the city of Isfahan. While the ambassador is right to make a rhetorical flourish about the ancient and distinguished pedigree of the Iranian people, his government is not entitled to consider itself the successor of that civilisation. The ambassador's gracious and sophisticated speech is a facade which covers a vitally ugly reality in terms of the regime he represents.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe realistically that Iran is centrally implicated in the immediate situation we confront. I believe this is a blind alley and a smokescreen erected for convenience by both sides. In one sense the Iranian Government would love to accept credit and say it is supporting its Muslim brothers. Like all the other Arab countries, however, it is not doing so and is leaving them high and dry.

Certain things are not entirely helpful with regard to the Iranian position. The references to Israel, which is a state recognised by the international community, as "the Zionist entity" is an unhelpful use of language. The denial of the Holocaust is appalling. The reference to wiping Israel off the map is, again, a piece of inflated rhetoric. I dislike completely the reality it might pretend to represent but I do not believe it. I do not believe Iran has the capacity and I hope it never will.

As far as I am concerned the nuclear issue is another side issue. I am prepared to park that because I believe in the rule of law and my understanding is that the Iranian regime, whatever my reservations about it, has not contravened a single item or protocol of international atomic legislation. I understand Mr. El Baradei has confirmed that Iran is not in breach of any sections of the legislation. It may be Iran is pursuing legitimately nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. I sincerely hope that is the case. I have reservations about nuclear energy because of the safety issues after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Today, I received some communication from a constituent appealing to me to change my mind. I will have to re-open this issue because of the global crisis we face in terms of energy. Again, I want to park that one.

I have my reservations about the regime. Democracy was invoked. Given that it is a parallel, everybody in America talks about Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East. It has strong elements of democracy, including a functioning court system that sometimes controls the worst excesses of the politicians. Nobody in their wildest dreams would describe Iran as a democracy. Democracy is imperfect but it is not democratic to have a system where more than 200 candidates are excluded by a clerical group from being allowed to even stand because they represent the opposition. Let us not fantasise here. This is not a democracy. Not only does it not represent the ancient and fantastically valuable culture and traditions of Iran, it does not represent its own people. We know that, so that is a farce.

Let us look at human rights. The Jewish community is terrified. Its members are often arrested and they are accused of spying for Israel. We have been through all that. We know it. A few of them survive here and there is no credit to the Iranian Government. That they are compelled to send people to parliament is a show.

It is the same with the Christian community, whom I have visited. The Christians were afraid to open their beaks. They did not want to do anything that would indicate to the minders who were with us what the real conditions were. They are not even allowed to wear civilian clothes outside. They have to wear the hijab. We were told that they were allowed to wear their own clothes inside their houses, as if that was the greatest emblem of freedom. A Dublin person would say "big deal". That is not tolerance. The largest Jewish community in the Muslim world is in Morocco — certainly there are much larger ones than in Iran — and it gives greater freedom.

The ambassador is partly correct about human rights issues. As somebody who passionately believes in human rights, that is the really puzzling thing about Iran for me. Sometimes when I listen to Mr. Ahmadinejad analyse foreign policy issues I consider him to be a highly intelligent, motivated man. At other times I think he is completely off the wall. For example, when he says there is no homosexuality in Iran. I have met them so I know. He knows too because his regime murdered them. Is the ambassador proud of the pictures that were sent to me by a married couple that had no axe to grind? They were not gay themselves, they were shocked and horrified. Two teenagers were hung from the back of a lorry after having been beaten, intimidated, shamed and murdered at the instigation of religious bigots. That is human rights.

The ambassador might find I am a fiery person but at least I am consistent. I was on the side that he thinks is right on all the issues he raised such as the Iraq-Iran war. I was on his side with regard to Tibet. I was on his side also with regard to the American invasion of Iraq. However, that will not excuse him or his government. He should not invoke human rights because as far as I am concerned that does not wash.

The involvement of Iran in Gaza is a side issue but it is totally and utterly hypocritical. I wish to put on record that in December 2008 Ayatollah Rafsanjani said that if tanks entered Gaza something amazing would happen. He said that Palestinians would use new weapons and hunt the Israelis from a long distance. Three years later the head of the Iranian army said Gaza did not need any logistic assistance, that it would leave them on their own. When the 70,000 university students marched for Palestine they were told by the Iranian Government to go home. When the mothers for peace and the students organised protests outside the western embassies the government arrested them.

What Iran was doing was cynically stirring up anti-Israeli feeling but not doing anything practical about it. The Egyptians are the same. I do not believe much went through in the way of weapons. Certainly nothing went through in the way of doctors. The Egyptians corked them up nicely at Rafa and would not let them through when people were being bombed into the earth. As we speak they are not allowing four children to come to Europe. Generally speaking, that is the respect there is for human rights, and that is why I pity so much the unfortunate abandoned Palestinians.

I thank God for people like John Ging of UNRWA and Ayman, the reporter from al-Jazeera — I cannot remember his other name — because we saw what was going on and we heard impartial evidence. I do not believe that Iran is centrally involved. Apart from anything else there is a religious difference. Hamas, which was assisted at its birth by the Israelis in order to split support away from Arafat, is composed of Sunnis, whereas the Iranian Government is committed to the Shias. I do not believe there is any closeness there at all but I do not think that stops diplomatic mischief and other being done. I do not believe Iran is helping the Palestinians. I think it complicates things. I hope things get better. I hope Iran gets better.

I hope that Iran will not reject the moves that President Barack Obama appears to be making. I thought his image of a closed fist turning into an open hand was very important. There is movement. I said previously that Bush was a criminal. Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air. Iran should not reject his overtures nor meet it with what we got from President Ahmadinejad, that he wants an apology as a first step. That is not a good idea.

It has been represented to me that Iran is arming Hamas. I am not sure whether there is an element of truth in that. Perhaps there is. The specifics that were given to me was that it was Grad rockets, the BM-21, and since they are usually manufactured in Iran that it was supplying them. I would be interested to hear a comment from the ambassador on that.

I speak my mind. I hope I speak it clearly. I speak it honestly and passionately. There is no personal animus. I can tell from the ambassador's stance that he is a civilised man but I do not believe that he represents a government that stands up to my standards of civilisation. He might say not many governments do, including governments in our own sphere. I have been critical of our Government. I have been very critical of the United States but at least my position has been consistent.

In spite of all the sophistication of the ambassador, his presentation was intellectually inconsistent, especially when it raised the question of human rights and the treatment of gay people in Iran. In respect of the latter, the Iranian position is blasphemous, as I indicated to former President Rafsanjani and Mr. Velayati when I was in Tehran. It purports to exceed the attitude expressed by the Holy Prophet Mohammed in the Holy Koran by murdering teenagers on accusation of homosexuality. The Holy Prophet never envisaged this or mentioned it in the Koran.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Like the other members, I welcome the ambassador. I will try not to cover issues that have already been covered and I will address the Israel-Palestine issue at the end. I agree with Deputies Timmins and O'Brien and also with Senator Norris on the human rights issues.

I was at a meeting — Senator Norris was unable to attend — at which we met some visitors on the political side from Iran. We raised the issue of the gay community in Iran and the fact that members of that community were being hung in public for no reason other than for being gay. We asked whether sexual orientation was still being met with capital punishment and public hanging. My recollection is that we were told that, due to the adverse international publicity since 2005, "gays are now being hung in private, not in public". Perhaps the ambassador will tell me whether this is still part and parcel of his human rights culture.

Reference has been made to the Baha'i community and I do not need to repeat what has been said. I would like to refer to the position of Iranian Christians and the Islamic legislation or punitive code that I understand has now passed its way through the Iranian Parliament. Perhaps the ambassador will confirm whether it has been enacted. Section 225 of the legislation deals with apostasy. If a male Muslim converts to Christianity, he can be punished by death. A capital sentence can be inflicted. If one is a female, one can serve a life sentence. I have details to hand of a variety of individuals and a number of couples who in the past 12 months in Iran have been persecuted, arrested and, in some cases, tortured for no reason other than their being Christian.

The most recent arrest of which I am aware – there may have been others since – was of three Christians on 21 January 2009, only a week ago. They were being held without charge on arrest. I do not know whether they have yet been released or whether anyone has been tortured. In the past 12 months, war has been waged on Christians in Iran if they put their head above the parapet or if someone in authority — I am not sure if it is the religious or state authorities because they get confused in Iran – decides the time has come to repress those who have converted to Christianity. For the Iranian ambassador to preach about human rights for any corner of the world in the context of the manner in which the Christian community is being treated in Iran is so perverse as not to warrant any credibility of any description.

I am sorry that, to date, greater attention has not been paid in Ireland to what is happening in Iran. I praise the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who attempted to raise some of these issues with the Iranian Minister. Deputy O'Brien referred to the letter that was sent. Will the ambassador outline the reply the Minister received to that letter or, if he does not know, will the Minister do so? It set down a very important marker on the concern we have, as a state, with regard to human rights. In his letter, the Minister described as very disturbing what was happening to Iranian Christians.

In case it was missed by those present, it seems the ambassador confirmed today, in a single sentence, that it is the objective of Iran to wipe the State of Israel off the map. He did so in more diplomatic terms than his President is capable of expressing the matter. In response to the first three speakers of this committee, when the question arose as to how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ambassador stated he believes in a one-state solution. Will he confirm that, by referring to a one-state solution, he means the state of Israel should no longer exist?

The international community has for a very long time been advocating a two-state solution, which I fully support. The United Nations, in 1947, prescribed that there should be two states, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. Unfortunately the whole Arab world rose up and opposed the formation of two states. We are where we are today because of the secession of the Arab world, supported by the Iranian Government and the fundamentalists of Hamas and Hizbollah, who are opposed to a two-state solution.

How many rejectionists' conferences have been held in Iran involving representatives of Iran, Syria and various other states opposed to any resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, together with the more fundamentalist groups, such as Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas? The ambassador might confirm that, following Oslo I and Oslo II, which comprised the first step along to route to solving the conflict, Iran held such conferences. Could he confirm that Iran was opposed to Oslo I and II? Could he explain Iran's approach to the Annapolis process that was initiated in November 2007 in the hope of securing a peaceful resolution to the conflict? Why did Iran encourage Hamas to oppose that process? Can the ambassador explain why Iran encouraged Hamas, throughout the 1990s in the immediate aftermath of Oslo I and for years thereafter, including into the early years of this decade, to engage in suicide bombing in Israel? Will he explain the contribution this made to a peace process? Will the ambassador also confirm that when the suicide bombings finally came to an end, to stir up further conflict in the region, Iran contrary to what he said not only supplied Grad and other rockets and missiles to Hamas but also mortars? Iran has, in fact, encouraged the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel over the past eight years.

It is not always the case that Senator Norris and I agree. However, I agree with him that Iran is using the Palestinians as pawns in its Middle East games to secure some sort of political hegemony in the region. Will the ambassador express a view on my belief that Iran has done everything possible that a state could do to sabotage every attempt at bringing into place a workable peace process that might resolve the plight of the Palestinians and address the concerns of the Israelis?

The ambassador told the committee that he would like to help the Palestinians to reduce their suffering. I am giving him an opportunity to disagree with me. Would he accept that the only solution in this region is a two-state solution with an independent Palestinian state living in peace beside an Israeli state, each of them having security and an end of violence? Will he expressly state whether he favours that type of solution or that he is opposed to it? If he is opposed to that solution, will he explain how else this conflict can be resolved?

His speech to the committee was just a series of accusations designed to take up a position on one side in a conflict. It had nothing to contribute to resolving the problems of this region in the manner urged by my colleague Deputy O'Hanlon.

We know in this country that George Mitchell made a profound and important contribution to the peace process and resolving our problems on this island. In 2001, George Mitchell produced a report on the early days of the Intifada making interim recommendations to try to bring the violence to an end and lead the Israeli state and the Palestinians to a peaceful resolution. Is Iran prepared to talk to George Mitchell about a peaceful solution to this problem? Is Iran prepared to encourage Hamas and Hizbollah to amend their basic constitutions and remove from them the commitment to destroy the Israeli state? In the interests of the Palestinian people, is Iran willing to acknowledge that this conflict cannot be resolved on either side by violence or wars and can only be resolved by discussion and accommodation?

The US President, Mr. Obama, optimistically hopes that by opening the doors to discussion he can produce a constructive result. Will the ambassador explain how the widely reported speech made by the Iranian President, Mr. Ahmadinejad, sets preconditions? He stated before he will engage with the US, President Obama should apologise first to the Iranian nation for a variety of reasons. In what way does the ambassador believe this contributes to dialogue and understanding for his president to suggest the newly US President should bow down before him and ask for forgiveness? Is there a more foolish and negative way of engaging in international diplomacy? I would love to be proved wrong but the speech made today indicates no willingness on the part of Iran to engage in a new dialogue and to constructively contribute to resolving the problems in the Middle East.

Deputy Michael Noonan

It has been an interesting dialogue. What are Iran's relations with Afghanistan? I understand Tehran did not have good relations with the previous Taliban regime. What is the position with the current Afghan Government? Does Iran support the UN intervention in the country? Is it assisting in the solution of the problems in Afghanistan or has it a different agenda?

Deputy Seán Ardagh

I thank the ambassador for appearing before the committee. Several years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Isfahan. The circumstances were different then when the reform government was in power. I was hopeful at the time that relations between the western world and Iran would continue to improve. Unfortunately, it looks likely that we will have to wait longer for this.

Chairman

Deputy Michael D. Higgins and Senator Norris asked me to give their apologies as they had to attend debates in their respective Chambers.

H.E. Mr. Ebrahim Rahimpour

Once again, I thank the members for their opinions and comments. Regarding the comments on Iran's part in global peace, without the help of Iran there would have been no peace in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Our western friends who are a bit more fair have mentioned this in public and others have mentioned it at meetings. There should be no doubts about Iran's influence on regional and global peace. Prior to this, we have tried to mediate in disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia, India and Pakistan and in Tajikistan. All of Europe will confess that Iran had an influence and a certain role in creating peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We can count different examples in the past 30 years of how Iran tried to help global peace. We cannot undermine the role of Iran in global peace by a few problems in human rights. The most important of these cases could be the Baha'i or the gay community.

Approximately 1,400 people are dead after 22 days in Gaza, yet again we sit around this table and we talk about a few executions or rumours of a few executions, if they exist. I do not like to repeat myself and what Deputy Shatter mentioned today at the meeting. We would like it if both countries spoke in a more polite manner, and we do not mean any disrespect to Ireland. However, I would like to ask Deputy Shatter, as spokesperson for children's issues, what he would think about 450 dead children in Gaza? Are they not children?

We need to change our view to a more humane way in order to think about global problems. We commented on the issue of Palestine and Israel in our last speech. The problem comes from elsewhere. It does not come from Hamas, nor from Arafat and not from the people on whom media attention focuses everyday. We will not stop our religious and cultural support for Palestinian people and for whoever is fighting for their freedom around the world.

I accept that there are human rights problems in Iran, but there are human rights problem in every country in the world. There is an issue as to why we are not allowing people to live in Iran as they wish. That is certainly not the issue. There are about 5 million Iranians living abroad, including the United States. We need to look at Europe, and the way that visa relations and foreign relations have been established with Muslim countries. Things are getting harder every day. Is it our government that does not allow people exit the country, or is it the governments in the West that do not allow people enter into their countries? I recognise that there are problems on the table, but I also recognise the need for dialogue and I am ready for it.

We never had good relations with the Taliban Government. We were the first target for the Taliban Government. They killed 12 of our diplomats in Afghanistan. Who made the Taliban the way they were? It was the United States of America. Who supported Saddam Hussein in the war between Iran and Iraq? It was the United States of America. God willing, it looks like all the changes in the region have worked to the benefit of Iran. Two enemies that we had in Iraq and Afghanistan have become our friends now. It is true that we have good relations with our Iraqi brothers, and we hope that future relations will be even better. President Bush will be followed with shoes when he goes to Iraq, and our president will be followed with flowers. We have the best possible relations with the current Iraqi Government and the current Afghan Government, and this is with the presence of American and other western countries in the region. Our influence and power is through this, and not through trying to gain atomic power.

Let us start believing that civilisation has its roots within the people of Iran. Two of the respected Deputies have mentioned the city of Isfahan in Iran. We all hope that they get a chance to visit the city. By boycotting a country and preventing the movement of people between two countries, nothing is being resolved. If this would have helped any country, Palestine would have been destroyed by now. Hundreds of millions of weapons and aid have been sent to Israel by the United States of America, yet Israel is unable to defeat a few fists and stones of the Palestinians.

We believe that all the attempts by Israel and other countries to create two states side by side have failed after 60 years. It looks like there has been no resolution between these two sides. The Iranian Government believes in one democratically elected government. It can be named whatever we wish, but there should be one democratically elected government for the region. Another example of this is in South Africa. We did not have any relations with South Africa, but now we have the best of relations with that country. We were of the belief that South Africa would be wiped off the map, and it was. We were not talking about destroying a country or wiping it off the face of the map, but we were talking of the oppressive regime that ruled over the country, and that has been wiped out. We hope that President Obama is able to bring a solution to the problems in the Middle East, as occurred in South Africa. Thank you Chairman.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador for his presentation. From today's debate, he has heard the depth of feeling there is on these issues among the committee. I am grateful to him for attending and listening in an open and forthright way to what members had to say. I believe firmly in the importance of dialogue, even in the most difficult of circumstances. While there are many issues on which we disagree, it has been very valuable to have had this discussion. I am grateful to the ambassador for appearing before the committee.

We currently want Iran to strongly support the peace process in the Middle East and the peace efforts of Senator George Mitchell as special envoy. We believe there will be a massive peace dividend for Palestinians in a two-state solution, as there will also be for Israelis. I am very glad to hear the ambassador stress the value of dialogue. It appears he will have an opportunity now to participate in that dialogue. I thank him for meeting us today.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.30 p.m. and adjourned at 5.35 p.m. sine die.