JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 2012

Middle East Peace Process and Related Matters: Discussion

Chairman

I apologise to Dr. Ajjuri. We needed at least one Senator to commence the meeting and as the Senators were voting behind closed doors for the past 15 or 20 minutes, we were not in a position to commence the meeting. I apologise on behalf of the committee for the late start but it was beyond our control.

On behalf of the committee I welcome Dr. Ajjuri to the meeting this afternoon. He is present to discuss with the committee the Middle East peace process and related matters. The Middle East has been designated by the committee as a high priority in its work programme for 2012. The committee has paid particular attention to the situation in Syria which has resulted in terrible suffering for the Syrian people but is also having a destabilising effect on the region as a whole. We have also watched with interest the changes taking place in other parts of North Africa and the Middle East, including Egypt, in response to the popular demonstrations which we have come to call the Arab spring. While there is some cause for optimism in the response of some governments, the response of other governments has not been acceptable.

As Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade I recently addressed the Doha forum on the challenges of the Arab spring. I felt it was important in my speech to remind the conference that notwithstanding the pace of change in some parts of the Middle East and North Africa, the legitimate objective of the Palestinian people of establishing their own state has still not been achieved. During the workshop in Doha on Arab and Israeli peace initiatives I was heartened to hear both Israeli and Palestinian speakers express a strong desire to move towards a solution in which both the Israeli desire for security of its borders and the Palestinian objective of statehood are mutually and equally respected. However, clearly the accelerating pace of construction by Israel of illegal settlements is a serious obstacle to progress towards those goals. Earlier this year the committee met with the Speaker of the Knesset and also with the Israeli Minister for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs. We now have an opportunity to welcome the representative of the Palestinian Authority in Ireland, Dr. Ajjuri. He is most welcome. He has been a good friend to me since I got to know him in recent years and I am sure that is the case with other committee members as well.

Before I invite him to make his presentation I wish to advise him of the following information.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of utterances at this committee but if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and continue to so do, they will be entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of this meeting is to be given, and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should neither criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, any person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I apologise for the late start. I invite the ambassador to address the committee. We are delighted to have him here this afternoon.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I thank the Chairman and distinguished members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade for giving me the privilege of addressing them today on the longest remaining occupation on the face of our globe, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

When the British Government sought to terminate its mandate in Palestine, the international community, through the United Nations, recommended a solution to the conflict between the largely immigrant Jewish communities and the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. That solution, contained in General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, called for the creation of two states, with Israel on 56% and Palestine on 44% of historic Palestine. Today, however, only the State of Israel exists, on 78% of historic Palestine, and it is a full member of the United Nations. Palestinians, who have suffered decades of displacement, dispossession and systematic denial of their national and human rights, have yet to be welcomed into the community of nations.

In November 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, PLO, declared the establishment of the State of Palestine in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip - that is, in just 22% of our historic homeland. By limiting our national aspirations to this extent, the PLO made an historic compromise in the interest of peace. Since then, the way has been open for a two-state solution, a Palestinian state in 22% of mandate Palestine with Israel continuing to exist in the other 78%. However, this generous gesture by Palestinians has never been reciprocated by Israel, the occupying power.

After his electoral defeat in June 1992, the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir gave an interview to the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv in which he spelt out the vision he was no longer in a position to implement: “It pains me greatly,” he said, “that in the coming four years I will not be able to expand the settlements in Judea and Samaria and to complete the demographic revolution in the Land of Israel.” His plan had been to negotiate for ten years with the Palestinians without giving them anything, meanwhile building an increasing number of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. Mr. Shamir did not get to put his vision into practice personally. He never became Prime Minister again and has just died at the age of 96, but his successors, particularly his student Netanyahu, have realised his vision for him. His “demographic revolution” has been achieved. There are now more than half a million Jewish settlers in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, more than triple the number when he left office. Years of negotiations have failed to bring about a Palestinian state because Israeli leaders have all refused to relinquish the territory taken over by force in 1967. Today, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, including east Jerusalem. It has annexed east Jerusalem and refused to comply with Security Council demands, in Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 476 and 478, that it reverse this annexation.

Israel continues to expand settlements on stolen Palestinian land. According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, settlements now control 42% of the land area of the West Bank. The territory, which is supposed to belong to a Palestinian state one day, is being steadily eaten into by Jewish colonisation. As we all know, settlement-building is contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Based on this, the Security Council has demanded, in Resolutions 446, 452 and 465, that Israel cease settlement activity and remove the existing settlements.

The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the construction of the West Bank wall in July 2004, declared that "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law". The court proceeded to order Israel to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall and dismantle forthwith the structure already built. It also called on Israel to "make reparations" for the "requisition and destruction of homes, businesses and agricultural holdings" and "to return the land, orchards, olive groves, and other immovable property seized" to construct the wall. Israel has defied both the International Court of Justice and the Security Council and kept on building both the wall and settlements as if it were a country above international law.

Israel holds the world record for violating Security Council resolutions. It is in breach of more than 40 such resolutions that require action by it and it alone, dating back to 1967. Had Israel implemented those resolutions, a Palestinian state would have been established long ago side by side with the State of Israel. Nevertheless, Palestinian leaders have tried very hard since 1988 to negotiate a two-state solution with Israel. However, Israel refuses to negotiate on a realistic basis, since for Israel, the occupying power, negotiation is a time-gaining process to allow it to steal an increasing amount of our land.

Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Mr. Yitzhak Shamir's successor as leader of Likud, says he is prepared to enter into negotiations with Palestinians without preconditions. However, in his speech to the US Congress on 24 May last year, when he received 29 standing ovations, he said "No" to a return to the 1967 borders, "No" to military withdrawal from the River Jordan, "No" to a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, and "No" to a symbolic return of some refugees. He stated Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state. What are those if not preconditions? In addition, Mr. Netanyahu has adamantly refused to fulfil the obligations for negotiations set out in the roadmap, which we all know is the internationally approved framework for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and which was drawn up by the Quartet in 2003 and endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1515. Under the roadmap, which was accepted by Israel in May 2003, prior to the start of negotiations, Israel is supposed to: make a public commitment to an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state; dismantle all settlement outposts erected since March 2001; and freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth. I do not need to tell members that Israel is in breach of all these obligations. Negotiations are now stalled because the Israeli Prime Minister refuses to freeze settlement activity as required by the agreement that Israel accepted nearly a decade ago.

At the White House on 20 May last year, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that Israel "cannot go back to the 1967 lines". He justified this by saying that the 1967 lines "don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years". Here he is referring to Mr. Yitzhak Shamir's demographic revolution, as a result of which more than half a million Jewish settlers now reside illegally east of the 1967 lines, on land that does not belong to Israel. Mr. Netanyahu is saying that because this illegal transfer has changed the demography of the land, it should now belong to Israel permanently. According to this strange principle of Mr. Netanyahu, it follows that the more land Israel colonises, the more land it can keep forever. No state in the world other than Israel would dare to argue in the 21st century that permanent rights to foreign territory can be acquired by planting settlers on it. That is the outlook of the 19th-century colonial power.

It once was observed that so doing is like negotiating over a pizza while one party to the negotiations is eating it.

In my opinion, there is no doubt but that Israel's actions on the ground in Jerusalem and in Area C on the West Bank are putting in jeopardy a two-state solution. This is not my opinion alone but is that of the European Union. On 14 May, the European Union's Foreign Affairs Council expressed "deep concern about developments on the ground which threaten to make a two-state solution impossible". The developments cited by the Council include:

the marked acceleration of settlement construction following the end of the 2010 moratorium, the recent decision of the Government of Israel regarding the status of some settlements outposts, as well as the proposal to relocate settlers ... within the occupied Palestinian territory, while all outposts erected since March 2001 should be dismantled, according to the Roadmap.

In addition, the Council cited:

in East-Jerusalem, the ongoing evictions and house demolitions, changes to the residency status of Palestinians, the expansion of Givat Hamatos and Har Homa, and the prevention of peaceful Palestinian cultural, economic, social or political activities.

The Council carried on by noting:

the worsening living conditions of the Palestinian population in Area C and serious limitations for the PA to promote the economic development of Palestinian communities in Area C, as well as plans of forced transfer of the Bedouin communities, in particular from the wider E1 area.

The Council also condemned the ongoing violence by settlers against Palestinians in Area C and demanded that all these Israeli actions must cease. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, stated after the Council meeting that if matters continue to worsen in the autumn, Ireland may propose "the exclusion from the EU of settlement products and of individual settlers engaged in violence". While I welcome the Tánaiste's statement by all means, long and bitter experience has shown that Israel does not respond to verbal requests. If the longest occupation left on the face of our globe is to be ended, words from the European Union must be transformed into deeds.

Another step that must be taken is the admission of the state of Palestine into the membership of the United Nations, as with such a step, the international community would reaffirm its commitment to a two-state solution, that is, to the continued existence of the Israeli State in its pre-1967 internationally recognised borders and to the creation of a Palestinian state with the West Bank, including east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, as its internationally recognised territory. This would reaffirm that Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it took over by force in 1967, which would now be the internationally recognised territory of the state of Palestine. This is consistent with the long-established principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and which the Security Council emphasised in November 1967 in its Resolution 242. If Palestine is admitted to membership of the United Nations, Israel would be in the unique position of being the occupier of the territory of another United Nations member state, which it would find difficult to defend. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 24 September last, the Tánaiste pledged Ireland support for United Nations membership for Palestine. In this regard, and on behalf of my people, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Irish Government publicly for this support. This is just the latest example of Irish support for self-determination for the Palestinian people, for which we will always be grateful.

Finally, I remind members that we always have stated that our admission to the United Nations is not a substitute for negotiations. However, negotiations must be on a realistic basis with the possibility of, in the words of the roadmap, "an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state" being achieved within a reasonable period of time. While I envisage no possibility of this at present we hope that when the nations of the world recognise the state of Palestine in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, Israel will realise it cannot defy the international community on this issue forever and it then will be possible for negotiations to take place on a more realistic basis with the objective of ending the longest remaining occupation on the face of the globe. I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Ajjuri for his update from the Palestinian mission on the present position. I will now hand over to Deputy Ó Fearghaíl for questions.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

I will be brief, as I must leave shortly to attend another meeting and my colleague, Senator Walsh, will deal with matters here. I thank Dr. Ajjuri for his concise but highly effective overview of the position. Interestingly, Question Time in the Dáil earlier today dealt with foreign affairs matters and the Palestinian issue again was one of the primary matters under discussion. The great majority of Members of the Oireachtas support strongly the Tánaiste and my party certainly has a tradition of supporting the Palestinian people in their quest for full membership of the United Nations and that position will continue.

I have a couple of brief questions. The Arab spring generates international comment and has resulted in phenomenal change in the region. Can Dr. Ajjuri describe to members the impact the Arab spring is having? Is its impact on the ongoing process positive or negative? Although the European Union has demonstrated great goodwill and willingness to do something about this intractable problem, it appears to me as though the United States has never come up to the mark in respect of what might be done to help to create this two-state solution. One problem in this regard is the regular cycle of elections that take place in the United States, which often make matters more difficult, and the November election now approaches. One had high hopes that President Obama would be able to do something dramatic. Is Dr. Ajjuri optimistic as to what might be expected from the Government of the United States in the months ahead? Given the level of unemployment in Palestine and the impacts on the huge numbers of young people with no gainful employment, how is the Palestinian Authority dealing with the challenge of keeping order and retaining positive motivation among the young population?

On the issue of sanctions, the Tánaiste helpfully suggested he would consider the possibility, in certain circumstances, of sanctions on produce emanating from settlements. Denmark and possibly South Africa have taken the decision to label such produce as the produce of the occupied West Bank. Would it be helpful for Ireland to sign up to such an approach? There have been suggestions in the media of an arts embargo and I note that Dervish, an Irish traditional band, had intended to perform in the area but withdrew as a result of pressure that was brought to bear on it. What are Dr. Ajjuri's thoughts on trade sanctions? On the issue of settlements, it is clear that in the absence of political progress, the process of building such settlements has speeded up and a new energy has been brought to this activity. Surely, each new settlement makes achieving the ultimate goal of peace more difficult. In this context, I note Benjamin Netanyahu is in a position in which he is dependent, not on the extreme right wing, but on the Kadima party. Is there some prospect of being optimistic about that set of circumstances?

Chairman

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has to attend a Whips' meeting, so perhaps the ambassador could answer his questions now.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

The Arab spring should raise the alarm and sound warnings in the region, in particular for the Israelis. For decades, the Arabs who revolted against dictators have suffered greatly. For a long time they felt their dignity had been damaged by the relationship between their rulers and America which takes the side of Israel. It is a black and white situation. America is the only strategic ally of Israel and over the years it has provided Israel with every possible means to make it a supreme power in the region.

While it is too early to speak about the impact of the Arab spring, clues have been given by the fact that Islamists are taking the lead in elections in those countries. That does not mean, however, that all Arabs in the region are Islamist by nature, but they are proud to be Muslims. It is just a means to try another sort of regime and another way of ruling. When Muslims sell themselves to the public as representatives of God, it is taken by ordinary Arab individuals in those countries that there will be some justice. However, they do not know that it is all politics, serving the interests of the party itself or the Islamist ideology, like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood was established in 1928 and has been working non-stop from that time until last month when the Egyptian Parliament was dominated by them and their representative was elected as president. It should not bother anyone in the short term but in the long term the only country which will suffer - as long as it keeps doing what it is doing in terms of trying to deter all its neighbours - is Israel.

We have seen what happened in Egypt where the first reaction was to attack the Israeli embassy. We saw Palestinian and Egyptian flags during those demonstrations. This gives us a clue that the Arab spring was influenced by the wrongdoings of Israel and by the acceptance of their rulers to act as puppets in the hands of other powers, particularly America.

This is a golden opportunity for Israel to come down to earth and accept what the Palestinians have offered. As I said in my presentation, it was a historic compromise when the Palestinians accepted to establish their own state on 22% of a land which used to belong to them before 1947. We call it our historic homeland. Let us not get back into this, however. I would rather wait until we see what is going to happen. In Libya, they are still in the process of counting votes but the liberals are taking the lead, which was unexpected. Everybody expected - as happened in Tunisia and Egypt - that the Muslims would dominate the legislative system in the country, as well as the executive, the presidency and the government.

Those countries - or whoever is behind the Arab spring - need time. The new rulers ought to be reassured by the western world that it is not taking sides. Things must be settled fairly. It has been perceived for a long time that the west is an accomplice with the state of Israel against the Palestinians and the interests of Arab countries in the region.

With regard to the forthcoming US presidential election, I do not believe President Obama will change his approach if he is re-elected. In 2009, we listened to President Obama's speech in Cairo and I thought he was Palestinian at some stage. Some 24% of Americans thought he was a Muslim because he spoke against the settlements. He also spoke about the social injustice inflicted on the Palestinians for decades. Year after year, however, we notice that he is distancing himself from all these promises. Up to now the US has sent us an envoy and today there is a US envoy to Palestine. The US only tries to exert pressure on us not to do this or that, for example, by asking us to await developments and not go to the United Nations. I cannot see any prospect of change from the new US Administration whether it is led by President Obama or Mitt Romney.

For us, America has been under a lot of control by the Israel lobby in the US. It is not very easy for the Palestinians, or even the Europeans, to change the American stance. That is why we are relying on the emerging power in the world, which is the EU, as an economic and military power. It is the power we are relying on to help us sort out the occupation and the only remaining conflict from the Cold War era. That is why we rely on Ireland and her European colleagues. We are neighbours because we are only kilometres away, while America is thousands of miles away. Whatever happens on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean will surely affect the northern shores also.

We heard what the Tánaiste said and I am sure he must have consulted with his EU colleagues in this regard. This autumn, I hope we will see some positive changes and steps taken by Europe. It might be a bit late, however, and I do not want to wait another six months until Ireland assumes the EU Presidency. We are counting on this move and we have been through this already. We want to end this conflict. We are trying to do so and with Ireland's support I am sure we will be able to do something. We have done all that we have been asked to do. The delay is on the Israeli side.

As regards pressure, including sanctions, I would echo what Ilan Pappé said a couple of months ago. He is a renowned Jewish historian and has visited this committee. He said, "The Israeli paradigm of peace is not going to shift unless it is pressured from the outside or forced to do so on the ground". The term "forced to do so on the ground" means an armed struggle but we do not want to get into this. We need pressure from the outside. We saw what happened in South Africa during the apartheid years. Without pressure and sanctions, the apartheid regime would still be in place today. Sanctions are not to punish the ordinary Israeli but to shake up society, as this is one of the most extremist Israeli regimes in recent times.

In 2010, we conducted a study that showed the Israeli occupation costs us €7 billion every year when our annual budget runs to only €4 billion. We would be much better off if the Israelis ended their occupation.

On Netanyahu and his deal with Kadima, it will not bring about any changes. Kadima decided to join with Netanyahu when it noticed the polls were against it. The next Knesset election will see it get far fewer than ten seats. That is why Shaul Mofaz, its leader, joined with Netanyahu; it gives him his first chance to lead his party in power. As long as Netanyahu is in office, unless there is pressure from outside, there will be no hope. Netanyahu was elected in 1996 with a manifesto published in his book A Place Among the Nations. In it he explicitly stated that the Oslo Accords aim at the destruction of the State of Israel so they must be destroyed before they destroy Israel. He has not changed his view since then. Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman told their Ministers last December that for the coming ten years they must manage the conflict, not solve it.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan took the Chair.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I thank Dr. Ajjuri for taking us through the facts on the ongoing conflict between the Palestinian people and Israel. Like other members of this committee, I regularly get correspondence from Irish and international non-governmental organisations, NGOs, working in the occupied territories. The more I read them, the angrier I get. Yesterday, I received one about the experience of some Palestinian farmers in the occupied territories and how they were attacked by Israeli settlers. I have no doubt about the veracity of the e-mail sent to me. These farmers were attacked, their land was burned and they were shot at by settlers who were ably assisted by Israeli soldiers on the ground. That is just one of a thousand stories I have read since becoming spokesperson on foreign affairs.

Those young Palestinians experiencing the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza must get angry when they see the Arab spring. I am concerned there will be a third intifada. The prison issue could have led in that direction but there has been some sort of a solution. I do not believe it has been honoured, as the Israeli side continues with administrative detentions that are against international law. What is the ambassador's assessment of the prisoner issue?

The Irish people are good friends of the people of the United States. We have an umbilical relationship with them because of our history. Like all good friends, we have to be honest with each other. The spectacle of Benjamin Netanyahu getting 29 standing ovations during his address to Congress was a stain on the American people's reputation in the international community. It was a shame he got that type of response in America. As long as he can visit the heart of democracy in the United States and receive that type of response with no hard questions from Democrats or Republicans, there will be no conclusion to the peace process between Israel and Palestine. It is long past time the European states said this to the United States. The United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which has blocked the right of the Palestinian people to statehood. It also tried to block and bully other states on the UNESCO vote. I am proud that my Government stayed the course on the UNESCO issue. As an Opposition politician I criticise the Government when necessary but I applaud the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on his stance on the UNESCO vote. I also applaud him for his recent efforts on the overdue European Council statement on Israel and Palestine. We now need to see real moral and political pressure applied to our friends in the United States to do the right thing. We talk about Islamic extremism, yet we have Christian extremism in the United States which denies, for hard-line religious reasons, the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people.

I am sick and tired of hearing reports of the disgusting treatment of the Palestinian people and their denial of justice. The time for niceties is quickly moving away. What we will face in the not-too-distant future is another uprising by the next generation of Palestinians. How much can they take? How many times can one have sand kicked in one's face when one tries to reach out to the other side? If the Israeli State does not respond in kind, we may have to go down the road we took when dealing with the apartheid state in South Africa, with sanctions. For example, sanctions are in place against Iran because it has allegedly not met its responsibilities with regard to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Ireland goes along with this. Israel, however, has never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Neither has it allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to any of its sites. If a state is belligerent, does not sign treaties, occupies someone else's territory and denigrates and degrades a whole people for generations, it is rewarded with 29 standing ovations for its leader in the citadel of democracy in the United States.

I get angrier every time I read an NGO report on the occupied territories. I am sick and tired of the niceties. If we are friends, then we should speak truthfully to each other. The United States really needs to step up to the plate on this issue. Whoever is elected in the next presidential election there needs to up the ante in this regard. If the United States wants to build good relations in the Middle East and be a defender of human rights across the world, first it must challenge the Israeli State to at last honour its obligations to the international community.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan

I thank the ambassador for his report. I support the two-state solution and the resolutions and decisions that have come from the UN, the International Court of Justice and the EU. I did not agree with the action taken by the band Dervish. Arts, culture and politics can be positive instruments for change. The musicians, if they had gone, could have made a far more positive impact because not everybody in Israel agrees with the actions of their Government. There is a way to move from within the country of Israel also because there are Israelis who do not like what their Government is doing.

I liked Dr. Ajjuri's comment on the situation in the Middle East and the way Palestine is being used by Iran and Syria. That is part of the difficulty. It was not always the case but it is adding to the problems for Palestine, that it is being used in the event of what might happen in those two countries.

The third matter is sanctions. Sanctions have worked in some cases, but they hurt ordinary people more than they hurt governments. That is also now happening in Iran. It is ordinary people who are being hurt rather than the Government, and the Government will, perhaps, sometimes be emboldened by the idea of sanctions rather than them having the other effect.

My last question relates to the comments about young Palestinians. Generally, I would be interested to hear Dr. Ajjuri's perception of the feelings of ordinary people within Palestine.

Deputy Eric Byrne

It has been a depressing presentation of the reality of how matters stand in the Middle East and Palestine. At the outset, I congratulate the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, who has made brave statements. I am conscious that we are a small country. We have been loyal to the Palestinian people.

Our hand of friendship goes back a long way. I remember dealing with Yasser Arafat when he was in exile in Tunis. We saw great hope and progression for the Palestinian people when he came back to Palestine, the elections were held, there was a Palestinian Authority, there was one PLO and there was unity. We gave Yasser Arafat the freedom of the city of Dublin and he won peace prizes and applause. The tragedy of talking about Arafat today is that he may well have been poisoned.

My history with the Palestinian people goes back to when matters were progressing at a substantial pace. They have stalled completely and have now gone into reverse. One now must deal with the walls that divide the communities and reactionary Israeli governments. It begs the question that if one squeezes the balloon, as the Palestinian people are being squeezed, an explosion will occur. Nobody wants to advocate an explosion.

I worry that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, may be ahead of some of those Governments in Europe which are defensive of Israel. I would like to think that he had the freedom to express the sentiments with the full support of his European partners but I suppose we must wait until the autumn to see what has transpired.

The Palestinian people seem to be caught in an incredible bind. With Europe preoccupied with the euro and America preoccupied with elections, it is easy to push the Palestinian cause to the rear guard. However, it is important to note, indeed applaud agencies such as the World Council of Churches. Small and all as these are, there is symbolism in young men and women, either standing in front of bulldozers or monitoring or standing in front of heavily-armed Israeli troops, in defence of a young lad or whatever. The more video footage that comes out, the more we get an insight into the abuses being carried out by the illegal activity of the Israeli forces. We do not want a third Intifada. The inevitable outcome of that would be killings and deaths of Palestinians on a massive scale. We should take some sense of confidence from what is happening in the Arab world, and particularly the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

However, we must ask a blunt question. I was supportive, but cynical, of the notion that one could create an interim unity government with Hamas. I understand that the Central Election Committee is not being allowed by Hamas to carry out its necessary work for the preparation of elections and that Fatah has stood back from the process. While I am looking for unity from America and Europe in favour of the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian cause needs to be supported by the Arab world and those with more influence on the need to create cohesion between Hamas and Fatah.

I remember the Apartheid years well. I remember the demonstrations when the Springboks came to Ireland. I am happy to say that I am going to a concert on Friday night where Paul Simon will be performing. That man was met with a similar dichotomy in terms of his relationship as a musician with the African people. He ignored the boycott then in place and history will decide whether he did right or wrong. I would like to see a speeding up of the identification of food produce that is produced from the occupied territories as it would be something I would advocate boycotting. I tend not to buy magnificent Israeli dates because I am not sure whether they are being produced from land that is legitimate or illegitimate.

We have done quite a bit as a small nation on the international field on behalf of the Palestinians. September will be an important month. I am looking for guidance as to how Dr. Ajjuri advocates we move matters forward. There will be an explosion. Matters cannot stay the same. The Israelis are using this opportunity of building ever more settlements in the territory. They now constitute almost 80% of the land mass. The question of the two states policy is at the crossroads. Many issues are at the crossroads. At that crossroads, one must work towards a peaceful progression or a sad, violent response. I plead with Dr. Ajjuri to give us the guidance we need in order to achieve justice for the Palestinian people.

Senator Mark Daly

Many referred to the fact that in the autumn the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, will again address the issue of the goods being transported into Israel from the settlements on the Palestinian West Bank. I am sorry I did not hear Dr. Ajjuri's entire contribution earlier. Has Dr. Ajjuri met the Minister, Deputy Gilmore, and discussed the mechanism he will use? It is the Euro-Med agreement. We have had numerous discussions here over the years about the fact that the Euro-Med agreement allows the banning of the importation of goods due to civil rights and human rights abuses, but have the Palestinians teased it out with their own legal team and examined the reality of that coming into effect? The West Bank is not part of Israel and the Euro-Med agreement only covers the state of Israel. How does Dr. Ajjuri see it? Has he discussed it with Deputy Gilmore? How does this come into effect? Can one use the Euro-Med agreement to prevent goods from settlements coming into the EU in light of the fact that the West Bank is not seen to be part of the State of Israel on an international basis? It is an important step but I note that other EU member states were not exactly overwhelming in their support of the Tánaiste's stance.

Vice Chairman

Members have clearly expressed their frustration and disappointment at the lack of progress. We know this is not a simple issue. If it was simple it would have been resolved long ago. I do not necessarily agree with my colleague, Deputy Mac Lochlainn, that we are angry. Anger does not put bread on the table; it merely puts blood on the floor. The negative debate which has been ongoing for hundreds of years requires both sides to come together of their own volition. Others will do what they can. The Americans and Europeans can use their influence, positive or otherwise, but there must be a commitment from both sides. Almost every time we hold a dialogue on this issue we get a list of the grievances from the good ambassador - although I do not blame him for this - and from his opposite number in the Israeli Embassy. That is not going to solve the problem. A list of grievances is of no benefit in a negotiation because we already know about it. Reiterating grievances only prolongs the problems and provides a reason for further aggravation and anger. It does hold out the possibility of a resolution in the short term. I do not say this by way of lecture. I have studied the region since I was 15 or 16 years old and, unfortunately, the situation has not changed since then. I heard the same speeches 30 years ago and two years ago in Israel. That is not progress.

The Arab spring and its aftermath have distracted a number of countries in the region and it is understandable that they are otherwise engaged. The United States will have a considerable distraction in the near future and, because of its unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation in the past, I do not think it will have the stomach for re-engaging to any great extent. One day the opposing sides will recognise that a first step will have to be taken in order to make progress. I accept we have stepped in both directions but a process needs to be established whereby the opposing sides can exchange views on a permanent basis. The initiative rests with all sides, including Hamas and Fatah. Dr. Ajjuri will understand the need for an initiative, as his previous interactions with the committee suggest.

What grieves me the most is that every two or three years we hear the same speeches we heard 30 years ago. That is not progress. It does nobody any good and it will get neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians into a negotiating position. We reached a stage of despair in regard to the issue that affects this island for the past 40 years. Many of us began to believe there was no solution but the issue was resolved because each side recognised the existence of the other. It was a brave step that took a great deal of effort and persuasion but it happened.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

I agree with the Vice Chairman regarding grievances but these are facts that we cannot deny. We must think positively and look forward. The situation in the Holy Land is different from anywhere else because on the other side there is Israel and the Jews. It is different. I do not want to rehearse the claims by Israel that Iran and Arab countries want to wipe it from the map and throw the Jews into the sea. In 2002, 22 Arab countries called on Israel to normalise relations in what is known as the Arab initiative and one year later the initiative was endorsed by all Muslim countries. A total of 57 countries are now willing to normalise relations with the State of Israel tomorrow in return for the land Israel took by force and occupied in 1967. What more do the Israelis want?

Of course there is fear that the intifada is coming. I mentioned this to the Tánaiste when I met him and he told me that he heard a different story when he visited Ramallah but there is a limit to the ability of our President to control our people. I see moderation dying in my region. The Israelis will never see a more moderate Palestinian leader than President Abbas but they are turning deaf ears and blind eyes to everything. Now we do not have salaries in Palestine. The young people are becoming more than angry. We have to control their anger by showing them the fruit of progress. We promised them that we would achieve our goals more quickly through negotiations and non-violent means but we have achieved nothing since we went to the Madrid conference of 1991 with the banner of land for peace.

The only Israel leader who consented to dealing with this issue on a realistic basis was Yitzhak Rabin but he was assassinated. He was the only decent leader in the contemporary history of Israel, which however is only contemporary. He was the only one who was willing to sign an agreement and participate in the famous handshake in the White House. He was assassinated because he was serious about settling the issue peacefully. He broke our bones during the first intifada because he was then Minister of Defence but when the right time arrived he sat down with Yasser Arafat and signed an agreement. Unfortunately, he was assassinated two or three years later. I believe the Israelis are not ready. Why did the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, tell his ambassadors around the world last December that for the next ten years they have to manage the conflict rather than solve it? It is a question which the world should ask the Israelis. We should not let Israel behave as if it is above international law. I did not want to speak about grievances. I do not want to mention white phosphorous, killing our children in cold blood or burning our groves. Last year settlers burned five or six mosques under the cover of the Israel army. I do not want to speak about this. If we did this the entire world would take a stance against us. Unfortunately, the Israelis are not ready for peace. It is as if peace is becoming an enemy to them.

I have heard from Israelis that the moment we settle with our external enemy our internal fight will erupt. It is an apartheid state - a racial state. There are first-class, second-class and third-class citizens - the western Jews, then the eastern Jews and then the Falasha Jews. Many laws are used by the Israelis against us and sometimes against the Jews themselves. Members should watch the news and see how they behave. The other Prime Minister who was just about to reach a settlement with us was Mr. Olmert, who was freed only yesterday from all indictments. I do not know if they created this for him. Every time they see a leader heading seriously towards a peaceful settlement, something happens to him, be it indictment, assassination or whatever.

The Arab spring should be alarming for us all. If we cannot settle within a year, the third intifada will erupt. However, the third intifada is less problematic to me than another war because if we wait for a few years I do not know what will happen. I do not want to talk on behalf of other Arab countries. I am instructed not to speak about the internal affairs of the Arab countries and even the Arab spring. However, if we do not see the impact of the Arab spring in Israel as an occupying power and a country conducting atrocities on a daily basis with no stick to be waved at least in the face of the Israelis from anyone, I am sure something could be coming. I do not wish for that something to happen. I do not want to see a third war coming or the uprising but if things stay as they are it will happen and I will remind members if I return here next year.

On the issue of the sanctions, I was the first to engage on a people-to-people programme in 1995 upon the instructions of Mr. Arafat. My other partners were the Israeli Oslo engineers, Yair Hirshfeld, Ron Pundak and Yossi Beilin. Those people were my partners on the issue of developing or promoting peace within civil societies. I was engaged in that programme for five years but we got nowhere. When Mr. Netanyahu came to power we lost the compass. We did not know how to carry on and to convince and convert those from each society to come together and discuss in a peaceful way our problems - with what he has done and his open statement to destroy the Oslo Accord before it destroys the State of Israel and that the Palestinian state should not be established.

When we heard Mr. Sharon in 1998 advising settlers to go and put their hands on the Palestinian hills and saying that whatever they had now would be theirs forever, how can I convince the Palestinian people to come with me and meet Israelis from the other side? In addition they were powerless and could not do anything. As soon as Mr. Rabin was assassinated, Shimon Peres took over for one year and after that the trouble started between us. The honeymoon ended when Mr. Barak was elected. While Mr. Barak was part of the Labour Party, he refused to vote in favour of the Oslo agreement when he was chief of staff. We know all of them and they are not ready for peace. Israel uses the Holocaust and other things as a sword to the necks of everyone in the world. Unless something is done from outside and especially by the friends of Israel in the western world we will get nowhere.

On the issue of sanctions, I wish to quote one of the Israeli chief rabbis during the Vietnam War. He said in a democratic society, if one is guilty, all are responsible. One can understand this, put it together and see whether it works. On the cultural boycott, I want to see the power of the musicians in Israel utilised. They should know the world is not happy with what their Government is doing. I want to encourage them to do something. Music should be the language of love and not the language of war or killing. That was behind my philosophy in calling for sanctions or anything else from outside which brings Israel down to earth because I have failed to convince the Israelis as a Palestinian that I am their partner in peace. We are their gate to security and to heaven. They think because theirs is the strongest country in the region holding a nuclear arsenal, they can deter and live by the sword forever. Nobody can live by the sword forever. Friends of Israel should tell them that those who live by the sword will die by the sword.

Vice Chairman

We have been critical of both sides from time to time. We are equal and fair in our criticism as Dr. Ajjuri will know.

Dr. Hikmat Ajjuri

That is fine.

Vice Chairman

In order to establish trust that is what those of us outside need to do. We must conclude this part of the meeting now because we have a vote. I thank the ambassador for appearing before the committee. He has been here in the past and has always engaged, which is important. While we do not agree on everything - nor do we agree with the Israeli position on everything - it is important to hear from both sides and give them fair and equal treatment.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.40 p.m. and adjourned at 6.55 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 18 July 2012.