I move:
That, in the prespective of Ireland's forthcoming Presidency of the European Community, Seanad Éireann urges the Government to make any effort to promote peace, understanding and reconciliation in the Middle East.
Middle East Policy: Motion.
The shocking murder last week of President Moawad of Lebanon was once again a reminder, if ever one was needed, of the grossly unsettled state of that part of the world.
The problems of Lebanon cannot be solved without a more general settlement in the Middle East, where long-standing conflicts remain fraught with danger for overall international peace and security. The far-reaching changes occurring in the relations between the super-powers have not yet been reflected in advances in the resolution of the conflicts in this region. The improving relations between East and West must not distract our attention from the problems of the Middle East. Rather, we should avail of the opportunity of a better international climate to try to hasten a settlement of this conflict too.
Some small but promising steps have been taken in the recent past. Ireland has been able, particularly as a member of the EC Troika, to make its contribution to advancing these steps. During our Presidency we hope to consolidate the gains which have been made, to nudge all parties beyond the margins of what they are now prepared to contemplate by way of accommodation with the other side, and to keep up the momentum of the peace process.
The most significant peace initiative of the past 12 months began with the decisions of the Palestine National Council in Algiers in November 1988. By recognising Israel's right to exist and renouncing terrorism, the PLO effectively made their own the position advocated by the Twelve since the Venice Declaration of 1980: a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict must guarantee security for Israel and self-determination for the Palestinian people. This move quickly earned for the PLO near-universal acceptance of its role in representing the Palestinian people and hence of its right to participate in any peace process affecting them, including participation in an international conference on the Middle East.
Israel, however, remains of the belief that the ultimate aim of the PLO is the destruction of the state of Israel and she is, moreover, unwilling to test by direct contact whether there has been a genuine evolution in the position of the PLO. The thrust of Israel's peace plan of 14 May last is, rather, to identify, by means of elections in the occupied territories, Palestinians not connected to the PLO with whom to negotiate an interim arrangement based on autonomy and eventually a final settlement.
Since September, the US has expended a great deal of effort, in conjunction with Egypt, to draw Israel into a dialogue with Palestinians on the modalities of such elections. The Twelve consider that elections in the occupied territories could contribute to the peace process provided that they are situated in the framework of a comprehensive settlement; they include east Jerusalem and take place under adequate guarantees of freedom, and no solution is excluded and the final negotiation is based on the principle of "land for peace".
The Twelve do not under-estimate the potential of a first-ever dialogue between Israel and Palestinians even if its basis is less than ideal. We want Secretary of State Baker to succeed in launching such a dialogue. At the same time, our encouragement is from the standpoint of an established position of support for a comprehensive settlement to be negotiated in an international conference with PLO participation.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has already participated in a European Community Troika visit to the Middle East, with the aim of advancing the peace process. Both there, and earlier at the United Nations, he met the principal participants and made clear Europe's readiness to help achieve a just and lasting solution to this problem. In its Presidency, Ireland will continue to enunciate Twelve policy as defined in the Madrid Declaration in a manner which promotes peace and reconciliation. We can assure each party that the Twelve are sensitive to its fears as well as to its aspirations; at the same time, we shall encourage each not to qualify its acceptance of proposals in such a way as to force the other side to reject them. As necessary, we shall state plainly that some behaviours are irreconcilable with a professed interest in advancing the peace process and that their continuation cannot fail to impinge negatively on relations with the Twelve.
One of the benefits we would hope to see from an improvement in Arab-Israeli relations is an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people in the territories which have been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Some 650 Palestinians have been killed since the disturbances in the occupied territories began almost two years ago, many thousands have been injured and tens of thousands have been detained. The Palestinian people have been seriously impoverished and rendered almost prisoners in their own areas by the repressive actions of the Israeli authorities. In their daily suffering, the tenuous peace process I have been describing must seem remote and holding only scant promise.
As Twelve, we have had to repeat to Israel our rejection of the violent methods being used to attempt to bring the Palestinians to heel. We decry the shooting of children, collective punishments such as the deliberate destruction of family homes and the arbitrary holding of people without trial in ‘administrative detention'. We also deplore the measures taken to deny the Palestinian people their right to education by the forced closure for two years now of the universities and the regular disruption of the secondary school year, most recently for two months form the beginning of November.
Ireland has a direct interest in education through the co-operation which University College Dublin, maintains with the University of Bethlehem. The partnership continues to flourish despite the enormous difficulties put in the way. Together, the Twelve are resolved to step up their aid for the betterment of the lives of the Palestinian people, particularly through more assistance to education. This is an action which Ireland wholeheartedly supports. By providing at least some hope to the Palestinian population in the face of their difficulties, we are also directly supporting the peace process by preventing frustration and despair from distancing the people of the West Bank and Gaza from the moderate cause now espoused by PLO leaders. We fully appreciate the difficulty of holding to this course while repression of the intifada continues and a meaningful peace process remains out of reach. We are, nevertheless, resolved to continue.
The recent killings in Lebanon were a cruel blow to the Lebanese people. They were also a bitter disappointment to the Arab League Tri-partite Committee which had worked devotedly to bring about the Ta'if Agreement on National Reconciliation and to convince the many interested parties inside and outside Lebanon to give peace a change. They distressed the entire international community which had wholeheartedly backed the Arab Tri-partite Committee. Not the least distressed are the Twelve, who throughout the French Presidency have spared no effort to bolster, in as practical a manner as possible, an initiative which was as promising as it was rare.
We have to admire the resilience of the Lebanese people and the courage of their parliamentarians who acted with extraordinary speed to elect President Hrawi in succession to the slain President Moawad. But we have also to be concerned that the recent events have brought closer the possibility of partition and civil war. The Ta'if Agreement holds out the possibility of a political process of national reconciliation and restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and unity. Its spirit excludes any recourse to violence or to military action, particularly when supported by foreign forces. Accordingly, the Twelve have lost no time in acting on the diplomatic front to contain the danger of renewed fighting in Beirut consequent on the President's threat to oust General Aoun from the presidential palace with the support of Syrian troops.
The Twelve will continue to promote the sovereignty, integrity, unity and independence of Lebanon. To this, end we will work for the implementation of the political reforms agreed at Ta'if as a means to foster reconciliation between the communities and will continue to advocate the withdrawal of all foreign armies.
Ireland is making a direct contribution to the security of Southern Lebanon through the provision of a contingent to UNIFIL. It is a matter of regret that UNIFIL has not been allowed to carry out its mandate. But we can take a justified pride in the fact that the presence of Irish troops, operating in very difficult conditions, has allowed some semblance of normality to return to the region and has reduced the level of tension there.
An abiding concern of the Government is the fate of the hostages, including Brian Keenan, who are held by various groups in Lebanon. The best hope for their release obviously lies in the return of peace. In the meantime, nationally as well as Presidency, Ireland will use all occasions to press the Twelve view that assistance in securing the release of these innocent persons should be given on purely humanitarian grounds by all those in a position to do so.
In other areas of the Middle East, some progress can be reported. Iran's acceptance of Security Council Resolution 598 nearly 18 months ago brought the Gulf War hostilities to an end. It is not surprising that the war's heavy legacy of bitterness and distrust has so far prevented progress in the negotiations for an overall settlement of the dispute. There are some signs that the shuttle mission between Baghdad and Teheran recently concluded by Ambassador Eliasson, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, may have created an opening for real negotiations to get underway. The Secretary-General has the unreserved support of the Twelve for his efforts to secure the implementation of Resolution 598. Ireland plays its individual part in the preservation of peace along the Iran-Iraq border through our participation in the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG). Just as we followed a policy of neutrality between the belligerents throughout the war, we now maintain that position with respect to the substance of the complex issues still to be resolved by negotiation.
Senators will be aware that the President of France has convened a meeting of European and Arab Foreign Ministers in Paris on 21-22 December. Ireland welcomes the opportunity which this gathering provides to relaunch the Euro-Arab dialogue in all its dimensions, technical as well as political, on the basis of new and less cumbersome structures. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has already, in his speech to the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Conference in Dublin on 11 September, expressed his readiness to do everything possible, especially during the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the Community, to see that the Euro-Arab dialogue is revived. May I pay tribute to Senator Lanigan for his enthusiasm and energy, which made this conference possible.
We hope that the Paris Conference will give clear guidelines for the future direction of the dialogue, guidelines which must be tailored to circumstances quite different from those which obtained when the dialogue was launched 15 years ago. The Arab League initiative on Lebanon and its support for the decisions taken by the Palestine National Council in Algeria are examples of developments which are welcome and which make a Euro-Arab exchange on such matters of interest. During our Presidency, Ireland will endeavour to give effect promptly to the guidelines for the dialogue which will be laid down in Paris, so that the practical work can produce tangible results.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the Government do not underestimate the task which faces them over the coming months in trying to promote the peace process in the Middle East. There is, however, a warming of the climate of international relations and we hope to avail of the opportunity to further the efforts already being made by the Twelve. We have already made a strong beginning to our work and we have every reason to believe that, nationally and when holding the Presidency of the Community, we will contribute usefully to a resolution of the problems which have for too long bedevilled the region.
I compliment the Minister of State on his very full and clear speech on this important motion. It is reassuring to all of us to get the feeling from the Minister's address that the European Community in such a very short time has advanced to a position of influence in world affairs and is able to utilise its undoubted widespread expertise to offer solace and solutions, and perhaps advance the cause of peace and reconciliation in so many troubled spots in the world.
Indeed the entire Middle East theatre of operations is very complex. We have the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq-Iran problem, the problem of Lebanon, which was so fully outlined by the Minister this morning, and we have the Western Sahara problem, which of late has been taking a lower profile. We are thankful for that. I would like to pay a compliment to the Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan, for over the last number of years keeping his colleagues in the House informed of the difficult problems requiring complex policies to solve the various conflicts or to ease the pain there. While it is quite a distance away from us, nevertheless the tensions there intrude on the peace in the rest of the world and, indeed, I suppose, on trade.
I welcome the opportunity to debate part of the Middle East problem. I know that Ireland's Presidency next year offers a golden opportunity for our President of the Council to influence in a very dynamic way the path to progress and peace. The Minister outlined the valiant efforts being made for the past couple of months by Secretary of State Baker to influence the Israelis to accept, even at face value, the changed situation as far as the PLO are concerned.
During the mid-seventies I had the opportunity to be part of the first European Parliament delegation to Israel which was concerned with the formulation of a more favoured nation trade agreement with the Israelis. At that time Israel as a State had its back to the wall. There was tremendous conflict there and they were a very small nation, I sympathised with the problems of Israel at that time but their intransigence and disregard for the rights of minorities or individuals and their attitude towards our UNIFIL forces have caused me to look with less sympathy at that conflict.
Since the change of policy by the PLO one would expect that the Israeli Government would accept what they see at face value and at least try it out. They must give those people a chance to prove the veracity of their new attitude. The least we can expect as a democratic nation is that the Government and the Ministers of Israel should be prepared to have discussions with some personalities in the Palestinian world. If we doubt discussions and we doubt an understanding of one another's position at first hand there can be no hope of peace, and hence prosperity. It certainly affects the flow of trade.
From my point of view, and from a humanitarian point of view, any conflict like that, going on for generation after generation in the Middle East, causes so much pain and hardship to innocent members of the public that it behoves any of us who can make any input into the situation to do so. I support the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State and wish them well in their role.
The Community's policy on Middle East affairs is very clear. The Summit in Madrid earlier this year made a declaration on the Middle East and the entire Middle East conflict. While it was defined in the Venice Declaration some eight or nine years ago, it proposes the right to security of all the states in that region, including Israel, advocates guaranteeing the rights of individuals to live within secure, recognised and guaranteed frontiers and the upholding of justice for all the people of the region, which includes recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people including their right to self-determination and all that implies.
The position the European Community has taken is based on justice and a very clear desire for peace. It cannot be brought about by dialogue between the different sections only. It must contain an element of accommodation and give and take. While I do not foresee the Community wishing to move away from the principal policies and the declaration it has adopted, which are well known throughout the world, nevertheless in the next six months our President of Council should leave no stone unturned and we should avail of the long-standing, special relationship between Ireland and the United States to influence in every possible way Secretary of State Baker to urge the Israeli Government to take part in talks to promote again in every way possible the holding free elections, free in every democratic sense of the word, in the occupied territories in Israel and Palestine and endeavour to introduce a greater element of democracy.
Political people of goodwill must be clearly identified. They must be elected into positions where they can embark on dialogue with their opposite numbers. That is the only way we can hope to have peace and reconciliation in that area. I note that last Monday the Community called for the continuation of the peace process started in Ta'if following the tragic assassination of President Moawad of Lebanon. Indeed, as the Minister said, it was good to see that the Lebanese Parliament were able, within a few days, to elect a new President, His Excellency, Elias Hrawi. I am sure this House wish the new President well in his daunting task of reconcilation and in the search for the peace all people of democratic minds are searching for in that tormented country.
I believe the democratic institutions must be strengthened if the sovereignty of the territory of Lebanon is to be restored and strengthened. It goes without saying that we all look forward to our Minister for Foreign Affairs availing of every opportunity to press for the early release of the hostages, including Mr. Brian Keenan from the North of Ireland. This is very important and we have got to bring it home to people in the Middle East that the taking of innocent hostages is intolerable. It is an unacceptable intrusion to take hostage an innocent individual, whatever his background, in order to promote their own particular military political movements.
I share the Minister of State's view on that. During the next six months he must surely have an opportunity, not just at EC level but bilaterally, to take the matter up with the leaders of every state in that entire region who may have any influence on the situation.
I welcome the declaration of the Twelve on the Middle East, especially paragraph (5), which states that on the basis of the positions of principle of the Twelve, the European Council welcomes the proposals for elections in the Occupied Territories as a contribution to the peace process, provided that the elections are set in the context of a process towards the comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the conflict; that the elections take place in the occupied territories, including east Jerusalem, under adequate guarantees of freedom, and no solution is excluded; that the final negotiations take place on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338 of the Security Council of the United Nations, based on the principles of land for peace.
I believe the key to making any progress on this must be the possibility of our President of Council being able to work much closer with the Secretary of State Baker in the US Government, while I believe we were correct in supporting the initiative of the US and Egypt in talking to Israel for the last few months, more needs to be done and we must get a breakthrough there. I expect that that is possibly one of the ways that we as a Government, with very well tried and historical links with the US may be able to exercise a modicum of pressure or support for the work they are going, which, unfortunately, is a long way away from the aspirations of the European Community. There must be an effort to bring the two positions closer together. I hope the Government will adopt it as their main task as far as this entire conflict is concerned.
I would just like again to compliment the Minister on the very clear outline he gave the House on the conflict and on what the Government hope to achieve over the next few months.
Before I say a few words on this motion, may I ask that the wording of the motion be changed — there may have been a printing error — it says "any" effort; it should have been "every" effort.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the fact that we are having this debate in the House at this time. There are people who would suggest that the House might be better dealing with problems we have here in Ireland rather than dealing with perceived problems in the Middle East, but nevertheless I feel that the House should be used on every occasion to progress the aspirations of all our people throughout the world towards peaceful solutions to the problems that confront us whether they be at home or abroad.
The commitment of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and indeed the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, is well known. I suppose we could say the reason for the commitment has an historial basis. There is a quotation I would like to give as the reason for our commitment and for the resolve of the Government to bring about a resolution of the problems. The poet suggested: "I ask nothing more than to die in my country"— I think that that is a very relevant quote when we consider the Palestinians —"to dissolve and merge with the soil, to nurture the grass, to give life to a flower that a child of my country will pick. All I ask is to remain in the bosom of my country as soil, grass, a flower." The quotation of poetry might seem to be irrelevant to the resolution of international problems, but sometimes poets express the needs of people better than politicians or people in the media.
The Minister in his speech referred to the problems of Lebanon. I think that we should, when we are talking about efforts to promote peace and harmony in the Middle East, refer to Lebanon as being a special place. Lebanon has been bedevilled over the past number of years by wars which are both internal and external in their nature. There have been enormous efforts made in the past number of years to promote peace in that area but, unfortunately, every time it appears that a peaceful resolution of the problems is emerging somebody will come in to bedevil the efforts being made. We wish the new President of Lebanon every good wish in his efforts with his Moslem, Christian and non-Christian friends in their attempt to bring together peace and harmoney in that land.
We have a special interest in what happens in Lebanon because of our involvement through UNIFIL in the peacekeeping efforts in the area. I think we should not forget, at this stage coming up to Christmas, the troops who are serving in Lebanon. They work in very difficult conditions. They work in the cause of peace. They have made part of southern Lebanon a haven of rest, a haven of pace, and that we should not forget. I would like to send to the UNIFIL forces our best wishes that they have a peaceful Christmas and that the efforts they make will be seen to have a lasting effect on the situation in Lebanon.
Mention has been made of the efforts made by US Secretary of State Baker and the efforts that are made by the United States to create an atmosphere in which an international conference can take place on the question of the Palestinians. It has to be acknowledged that the United States has at last recognised its responsibility in the area and has made fantastic efforts to create a dialogue between the combatants in the area but, unfortunately, the efforts of the European Community, the Irish Government, of people from all over the world, has of now come to nought because of the intransigence of the Israeli "Government" in inverted commas. Israel has a right to exist——
On a point of information, would the Senator define what he meant by inverted commas?
I would suggest, in reply to the query, that there is not a Government in Israel because of the fact that the "Government", in inverted commas, has never addressed the problems of the area.
That is an extraordinary statement.
It is a statement of fact. Within the area we are talking about the Israelis are the only people who will not get involved in the peace process. They have suggested they will get involved and they will talk with Palestinians as long as the Palestinians are not members of the PLO. The PLO represent the Palestinians and there cannot be a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem unless the representatives of the Palestinians are involved in negotiations. The Palestinians are represented by the PLO and if there is to be an international conference the representatives of the Palestinians have to be involved. There is no point in suggesting that people who are Palestinians can be involved as long as they are not members of the PLO. The PLO will have to be involved.
On the question of hostages which was raised in the debate, the taking of hostages is something that should not take place. Hostage-taking does not give credence to any organisation and it does not resolve any problem. We talk about Brian Keenan, I suppose, as a particular case in point; but every hostage-taking is reprehensible and we must use all our influence in every forum to ensure that hostage-taking will never become part of the political process.
I would like to re-echo today in this House what the Minister has said and what Senator McDonald has said. We appeal to those who have taken hostages to release them. By releasing them their political ideals will not be enhanced, because the taking of hostages was reprehensible in the first place. We just appeal on a humanitarian basis that these people be released. Coming up to Christmas — a Christian feast — we ask them, whether it be Sheikh Fadlallah of the Hezbollah, or whoever is involved, to release the hostages.
Europe has a major part to play in the resolution of the problems of the Middle East, because Europe in general created the problems. The whole of the Middle East area was bedevilled by imperialism from Europe. We might attack the United States for its intransigence in not attempting to resolve the problem, but the problem was initially a European problem. Ireland is the only nation in Europe that did not take over part of the territory we are talking about. We are the only nation, therefore, who can stand up and ask for resolution of the conflict in the Middle East. We did not go into any area of the Middle East as imperialists, therefore we are the only nation, I think, that has credibility in the area in the resolution of the problem. We can go in as a neutral nation and ask that there be a resolution.
The debate concerns the Middle East. We have tended in the past to concentrate our debate on the Palestinians and there has not been a resolution of the Palestinian question. I am glad that under the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and his very able Minister of State we are to the forefront in the attempt to have a finer resolution of a particular problem.
Thankfully, the Iran-Iraq war has been brought to a conclusion, but there are ongoing problems in regard to Iran-Iraq. There are human rights problems there which have to be resolved. I believe we in Ireland, during our Presidency of the EC, will be making every effort to ensure that any contravention of human rights in those areas will be eliminated. The quest for peace in that area is one that we have adopted as a country. We might disagree on elements of the problem but I think there is a genuine, concerted public opinion in Ireland that suggests that promotion of peace in that area will ensure that there will be peace in the "world", and I put the word "world" in inverted commas again.
I welcome the debate here. I do not want to go further than the 15 minutes we have allotted ourselves. Coming up to Christmas, I believe every one of us should keep in mind the problems the people of Lebanon are confronting every day, that we ask the Government, the Minister, through his membership of the Troika, to do everything possible to ensure that peace will come to Lebanon and to make it a matter of high priority.
Israel has a right to exist in the international community. We ask the people and the Government of Israel to recognise the rights of the Palestinians, and we ask the Israelis to give the Palestinians the very same rights as they have acquired through international treaties. In areas in the Middle East where minorities are being oppressed, we ask the Government to look after the interests of the minorities in the Middle East, and stress that reconciliation between the peoples of the Middle East is an essential for peace in the world. We have seen enormous changes in Eastern Europe over the past number of months. What has happened in that situation might be reflected in the Middle East if international pressure can be brought upon the various people there through the efforts, in particular of our Minister, over the next few months to ensure peace.
I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and I am sure it will have an impact on the peaceful resolution of the problems of the Middle East.
Given time limitations, I do not propose to address all the points in the Minister's speech except to say, of course, that if I do not dwell on matters like Lebanon it does not mean that I do not share the universal concern for the extraordinary agony of that country beside which our own problems are insignificant.
I also want to endorse what has been said about the role of our soldiers in southern Lebanon. For me, our independent role in world affairs, particularly our peace-keeping role, has always been a matter of great pride and importance, and I join with Senator Lanigan in expressing best wishes to our people in Lebanon for the Christmas season.
We must also express our concern for the appalling plight of the hostages. The trouble about these matters is that we feel powerless to do anything about them and we sometimes feel it is pointless then to say anything about them, whereas it is only repeated pressure and concern that will get action.
All of us in this House, and in the other House I am sure, have received representations in recent days from the Civil and Public Service Union here in Dublin, who in turn are conveying the concern of the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance on behalf of Brian Keenan, so it is truly an all-Irish concern. One can only attempt to imagine the suffering and agony of his family and the uncertainty about his whereabouts. Therefore, I add my voice to those who urge our representatives to make constant representations about the hostages problem.
I want to confine my main remarks to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a topic on which, to my recollection, I have not spoken in public. During various debates on foreign policy here I have stayed off the Middle East, partly because I do not know a great deal about it, not because I am interested in it but partly because I have always found myself torn between sympathy for the conflicting groups. I know that in this House there are individual Senators who, because of their admirable interest in and their close knowledge of the matter, have taken a strong stand, and, indeed, a partisan stand. That is the way they see matters, and I understand that.
One of the reasons I was hesitant in ever expressing a view about these matters is that I did see faults and merits on both sides of the case. The issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are extremely complex. It seemed to me that both sides were at least — if I may confine myself to the past tense — engaged in terrorist acts and I do not see how any Irishman at home can condemn terrorism in Ireland and support it elsewhere, whether it be the Middle East or South Africa. But it does seem to me that the situation has been changing in recent years and it is easier to see what the issues are now.
Whether the Israeli state should ever have been set up at all is debatable, but that is now a matter for historians. It has the right to exist but its moral position, I feel, was stronger before 1967. As long as it stayed within the 1948 confines, as it were, its moral position was stronger; and the moral position of the Arab world in demanding its abolition was correspondingly weak at that stage.
What has happened in recent years is that these moral positions have been reversed. Increasingly, since Israel expanded her frontiers and since the commencement of the Palestinian uprising, she has forfeited much of our moral respect because, as Senator Lanigan said, of her stubborn opposition to any compromise settlement and her ruthlessness in dealing with Palestinian dissent. One cannot help contrasting, by the way, the ruthlessness of the Israelis in putting down Palestinian dissent and the relative restraint shown by the security forces in Northern Ireland. The way the Israelis go about their suppression certainly puts British brutality in perspective.
I have often discussed the whole problem with some Jewish acquantances here and with many Jewish friends I have in the United States, and it is not an easy thing to do. If I tell my New York Jewish friends that Israel should move back to its pre-1967 position they will accuse me of not only being anti-Israeli but anti-Semitic. Jews are extremely sensitive to critism of any kind. It is well known on American campuses that you can make all kinds of jokes but you might well risk your tenure position if you make a Jewish joke. While some of this is understandable for historical reasons, the extreme——
I thought they were attacked in 1967.
——sensitivity on——
That is not historically correct.
Could I surface from under the crossfire, please? While the sensitivity of Jews in general is understandable for historical reasons, it seems to me that there is a more basic reason for their "above criticism" complex. It is hard not to conclude that many Jews still believe, still are victims of the absurd delusion that they are God's chosen people, as if God were some kind of cosmic arbitrary teacher in the sky who picks out his pets here and there among the creation. Even non-religious Jews tend to share this notion and to subscribe to the secular counterpart of the notion.
The Israeli state exhibits this elitism, it seems to me. I might almost call it racism. What they have been demonstrating in recent times is ironically the Herrenvolk principle, that one race is superior, for reasons of Providence, or biology to others. For the Israelis to demonstrate this principle is, as I say, truly ironic. It is apparent in their dealing with the Palestinians, and I mean their everyday dealing with them. This, too, is ironic in view of the common Semitic heritage of the two antagonists.
I must say, however, that I basically support the Israeli position of fiercely defending a homeland which is at once their biblical destiny and their guarantee against a recurrence of Gentile inhumanity. This is irrespective of whatever reservations we, as Irish people, might feel about the Israeli role in south Lebanon.
But if Israel is the Jewish homeland it is also the Palestinian homeland, and there is the rub. Israeli refusal to accommodate the Palestinian problem over the decades was never acceptable. Perhaps it was understandable, given Israel's isolation against the threatening Arab world which denied its right to exist but now the Israeli position is morally indefensible in the light of changing Palestinian policy.
I said I had reservations about PLO terrorism. It seems we have to accept the remarkable change in this direction. We have to accept Yassar Arafat's statesmanship, his acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist, his disavowal of terrorism. His seems to be the voice of sanity in what is often a fanatical Arab context because, of course, some of the Arabs think also that they are God's chosen people. There is no doubt that God has a lot to answer for.
Irish people are generally happy to support our Government policy and Community policy. Our best hope is that during our Presidency of the EC there will be progress towards a settlement. There are signs of hope, as has been said — signs of hope perhaps that began with Egypt's admirable conciliatory moves back in President Carter's time. The end of the Cold War gives us additional hope that the super-powers may make a constructive contribution towards a settlement. As has been said, the United States are at last beginning to move away from their mesmeric and automatic support for Israel, and this will be absolutely crucial because without United States support the Israelis cannot continue indefinitely to be intransigent. I, too, wish these initatives, the Baker initiative, every success.
"Two nations warring in the bosom of a single state" was the description applied by an English statesman in the 19th century to the antagonisms in Canada between the French and the English. What is to be accomplished now is to get two hostile nations to live peacefully side by side, perhaps in adjoining states. It does appear to be one of the world's most intractable problems but, as I said, we must be optimistic and there are signs of hope.
Apart from the Irish Presidency, and from our immediate involvement therefore in the problem, we should be able to identify with the Israel-Palestinian problem. No two political problems in the world are identical, but there are some similarities between our own concerns and what is happening in that part of the Middle East. Irish nationalists instinctively might indentify with the Palestinians and that is understandable. But in one respect our basic psychological problem is very similar to that in Israel, because we, too, have to find out and have to admit to ourselves that our homeland must also be shared, that our homeland, like the Israelis', is also the homeland of another people who are antagonistic to us, who have a different religious and political allegiance, and with whom we have to live peacefully side by side. I suggest there are quite real similarities between our problems in Ireland and problems in the Middle East and that that should intensify our determination to make a contribution to the solution of this problem.
I wish the Government and the Community well in this effort. I support the motion but I would like to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to give us some inkling of Government thinking on the matter of diplomatic representation in this regard.
I, too, support the motion but I think we have to relate to the fact that the Middle East situation is Byzantine — at one stage it was part of the Byzantine Empire — and when you try to simplify it you find you are up against realities which are very different from the superficial appearance. Even at the moment in rightly condemning the appalling assassination of the President of Lebanon, one realises when one looks at the groups that contain the Christian groups are being supported by some of the Muslim nations and, indeed individual groups and vice versa. Therefore, it is an extraordinarily difficult, complicated situation.
I am not sure that the EC initiatives have any great prospect of success but I think that during this period of six months when Ireland has the Presidency we should make an attempt because with our understanding of the deep emotional feelings, some of them allied to religion, emotions which we ourselves experienced in this country, the colonial or post-colonial situation which we have experienced in this country, the fact that we have great sympathy with both main groups, the Arabs and the Jewish people, that our hands are not bloodied by any previous involvement, we are in a situation where, despite all the tremendous difficulties we may be able to help to bring about a solution though our Presidency of the EC.
In the past the previous leader of the main Opposition Party, Deputy FitzGerald, spent a great deal of time and produced a very significant paper in relation to the Middle East situation and further back for the Leader and founder of my own party, Mr. de Valera, it was one of his particular concerns. He showed a great deal of foresight as far back as the likely tragic outturn of the policies then being pursued and which have haunted us ever since.
I, too, would like to make a plea in relation to the hostages. We rightly condemn atrocities occurring on this island but bad and all as these atrocities have been one of the most wicked and evil events is the taking of somebody as a hostage and putting not only the individual himself but most of all his family through the agony and anguish, particularly as more than one or two of these hostages after weeks, months or years have been brutally murdered and photographs of them produced for the edification of television and newspapers. I do not think there are any words sufficiently strong to condemn such actions.
At the same time we must realise that even if it seems almost a contradiction, the reality also is that there has been an extraordinary amount of tolerance in the Middle East down through the centuries, with Jewish people living very peacefully in areas which are now the scene of so much conflict. When we talk about the Christians out there we sometimes do not reflect on how they got there in the first place. They are of course the successors of the crusaders. There is the Muslim-Mohammedan situation there for several hundred years. Yet despite that, there was sufficient tolerance there for a large Christian population to live in peace with their neighbours.
Up until very recent years Lebanon was an extraordinarily beautiful, peaceful and prosperous country of Arabs, Muslims, Christian Arabs, Jewish people and people from an extraordinary variety of races living at peace together in a small country. Then, gradually it degenerated. There is a lesson there for us. It is, that you cannot just let things slide, that you must make every endeavour, no matter how difficult the situation, to come to some form of political resolution. This applies in this island just as much as in the Middle East.
We have seen in Lebanon a neglected situation, in which various countries interfered, which gradually has got worse and worse until now it seems almost intractable. That is why I am so anxious that, no matter how difficult it is, we in Ireland, when we have the opportunity in the next six months can do something worthwhile in foreign affairs. This is not something in which normally we have a major role to play but we could do something which would be of genuine practical usefulness. Already we do that in a limited but very crucial sense through the participation of Irish troops in Lebanon. I would also like to join in a tribute to them. At times we do not appreciate fully our armed forces and the very helpful role they have played in a number of countries throughout the world under the United Nations auspices. Long may that continue.
It would be very easy to join in support or condemnation of one group or another. It is very easy to condemn the Israelis but I wonder if we had come through the appalling events of the past 40 years would we be very ready to negotiate in a rational and sensible manner if we thought, rightly or wrongly, that the security of our people was threatened. I doubt if we would. We should be very slow to condemn the Israelis, despite the fact that they have been very unco-operative. We had some instances in relation to our own soldiers which are very much to be condemned. If we are seriously to try to bring about a peaceful solution in the Middle East we have to look at the realities behind the Israeli position, try to determine the realities behind the Arab position and to realise that the boundaries that are there at present are extraordinarily artificial. It was a question of the French and the British just drawing a few lines on the map. That is the reality of it. There was no such country as Jordan; there was no specific entity such as the present Palestine. Even countries such as Syria and Iraq were carved out of various areas and are post-colonial in so many respects. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, and so on. The superficial appearances hide a Byzantine complexity of history which we just cannot ignore.
The recent statements by Palestinian leaders that they are, in effect, willing to accept an Israeli state and to accept that it has a right to exist for the future is a remarkable breakthrough. One matter of urgency during our Presidency of the EC is to act while this breakthrough is relatively recent and not to allow those on the Arab Palestinian side, who have been willing to make this very considerable move forward, to be discouraged and not to allow the more hard line people, who feel that theirs is the only way forward, to be encouraged.
I would like to join in supporting this resolution. I recommend it to the House. With all the difficulties and complexities, nonetheless we must try if we can, with a very balanced and open mind, to be ready to condemn the atrocities but to try, however difficult it may be, to understand the reasons, the emotions and the historical background behind these various attitudes. Indeed, in our own reflections here on this island perhaps we have a few lessons to learn from the turmoil and the sad situation in the Middle East.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome this motion seeking that Ireland in its forthcoming Presidency would maximise the opportunity to promote peace, understanding and reconciliation in the Middle East. I welcome the remarks made by the Minister here today. Certainly the stark reality of the situation was brought home to us very clearly last week with the murder of the President of Lebanon. Indeed, only last year, there was an end to the terrible slaughter in Iran and Iraq which sent well in excess of one million people to their death.
The daily repression of the Palestinian people is a stark reminder of the continual strife and conflict in what is described as the Palestinian homeland. Farther afield, the continuing strife in the western Sahara indicates the further conflict that bedevils the areas. Therefore, it is extremely important for Ireland to use whatever opportunities are available because Ireland has a natural affinity with the situation in the Middle East. We ourselves have been a strife-torn country not just for decades but for centuries. The occupation of Palestine in 1967 almost coincides with the recent development in the strife that has occupied Northern Ireland over the past 20 years or so. We certainly have an understanding of and should have compassion and affinity with the situation that exists there.
In looking for a solution I do not think we can do other than look at the causes. A solution to the problems in the Middle East is not necessarily to be found in the Middle East. The problems of the victim are often caused by far greater forces outside. Indeed, we should not in any sense think of confining ourselves to seeking a solution there without addressing the very broad, vested interests that have been involved in fomenting problems for their own purposes. When we consider peace, understanding and reconciliation, we must look to the great power blocs of the east and west and recognise that the problems in the Middle East would not have the same magnitude if vested interests were not exercised by those power blocs. Any analysis of the instability of the Middle East has to focus on outside factors, factors which, indeed, for centuries lay well outside the area.
With regard to anti-Semitism, this is not a Middle East phenomenon; it is a European phenomenon which was cynically used by right wing autocrats and governments for their own aggrandisement over the years and this form of scapegoating of a people was brought to an all-time barbaric low during the Hitlerian holocaust. The question must be asked: would the state of Israel exist today or would it need to exist today if European anti-Semitism did not exist in such a rampant fashion over the years, decades and centuries? Anti-Semitism did not originate in nor was it a characteristic of middle eastern society. It originated and developed entirely outside the area in western and eastern Europe.
Secondly, we have to look at the area of imperialism which goes right back to the time of the Crusades, when western European powers had designs on middle eastern lands and resources. This interest was taken up and developed later by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire and later by the French and British, who had their colonies in Syria and Palestine. Indeed, as the Leader of the House mentioned, Ireland is one of the few European countries which has not had imperialistic designs on the Middle East. These colonising forces saw themselves, with peculiar European arrogance, as having a civilising mission among the lesser breeds of the lower cultures of Asia. Indeed, we see how that has been extended to this country and other countries throughout the world and that has been a concomitant factor in the outside influences.
In modern times we have had the oil interests and the need for western powers to protect their vital economic interests. President Reagan at one stage refused to rule out the use of military means to protect, as he put it, the vital economic interests of the west. Imperialism can hardly be said to emanate from within the Middle East. It is an extraneous factor.
Thirdly, there is East-West ideological tension. The Middle East is an area of great geo-political and strategic importance. It is at the crossroads of three continents, Europe, Asia and Africa. As well as being a massive sphere of influence in itself, communism and the interpretation of what communism stood for, had to be stopped dead in its tracks — communism, meaning anything such as nationalism or left-wing developments and movements. Israel could be used and manipulated as a western garrison that could be called on for support when eastern establishment were threatened by left-wing forces. One has only to remember the Suez Canal and the crisis of 1956 and the cynical manner in which European imperialism intervened and used the situation. Not only had the Arab world to be protected from ideological contamination but black Africa had to be saved from turning red also. That was the politics of the Cold War.
There is hope at the present time. Anti-Semitism as a political weapon has been totally discredited world-wide. Political and economic imperialism has at least been considerably weakened by the more independent Arab states and the momentous events taking place in eastern Europe are heralding the end of the Cold War. Thus, the great significance of what we might call the Gorbachev changes is the undermining of the basis of East-West confrontation and that is extremely important for the future hope of peace and reconciliation in this area.
America is already objecting to the need for massive military spending. Who is it going to be used against, they are asking, and for what purpose? The united European approach in the Monnet-Schuman understanding of the European Community back in the original days, namely, that it should extend from the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic, could be very useful, and a properly informed sensitive initiative from Ireland during the European Presidency could help greatly to bring about a joint East-West approach to the problems of the Middle East.
The development in recent times in the area, with the peace initiative coming from the Palestine National Council in Algiers in 1988, must be seen as a major breakthrough because for the first time the Palestinians stated they were renouncing violence as a means to achieving their desired objective of a homeland and were recognising the right of Israel to exist. That in itself is a major step forward and must provide a starting point for a solution to the problem. In that context, Ireland should take the ball on the hop. Ireland will hold the Presidency of the EC from next January and there is now the opportunity to convene an international conference, that would include East and West and the power brokers who have been responsible for so many of the problems in the Middle East, to see whether progress can be made through the good offices of a country like Ireland having the Presidency and having neutral status as well.
Irrespective of success or failure, peaceful methods must be explored in broader areas also and Ireland, in the context of the EC, can promote economic, educational and social contact and interchange to build up relationships which help to break down barriers. In that context I would like to welcome the move towards opening a PLO office in Dublin. That would be a desirable development, as was proposed by the Leader of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, recently after eschewing violence as a means towards the end. Can the Minister tell us the Government's position in relation to that proposal?
I believe the House would universally condemn the taking of hostages. We are particularly concerned with Brian Keenan, the Belfast school teacher, who was kidnapped in Beirut, who has now been three and a half years a hostage and whose whereabouts are unknown. We have no doubt the Government have explored every channel available to seek his release. However, this is not the public perception; the public must be reassured constantly that the Government are making every conceivable effort to secure his release. Perhaps the Minister would indicate the efforts that are being made by the Government to secure the release of Brian Keenan.
The Labour Party salute the courage of the Irish UN peacekeeping force in the Middle East. They are soldiering in most adverse and difficult circumstances Indeed, some have given their lives for peace in the Middle East. We, too, would like to associate ourselves with other Members of the House who have wished them Christmas greetings and a peaceful Christmas in the Middle East. Their generosity in giving of their efforts, and indeed their lives, contrasts starkly with the niggardly way in which they and their families are treated in Ireland. They are subjected to poor pay, poor working conditions and are still refused a representative body or representative bodies such as are now coming into being in other European countries. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot give our forces at home much better conditions. These matters must be resolved urgently.
Finally, we urge the Government and our colleagues in the EC to take a public, forceful and consistent stand against anti-Semitism, Zionism and imperialism which have bedeviled relations in Europe and the Middle East over the centuries.
I would like to congratulate Senator Lanigan because I know of the efforts he has made, particularly in relation to the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Conference last September, and the efforts he has made over the years in bringing about contact and understanding between the people of Ireland and the Arab world.
I welcome the fact that this motion is on the Order Paper and is being discussed in the Seanad. First, I would also like to pay a compliment to Senator Lanigan and I regret he is not here to hear my few words. He has been very involved in the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Co-operation and in that context was personally responsible for a major conference which took place in Dublin in September, consisting of parliamentarians from both the Arab world and the European Community countries. I would like to compliment him on that.
We are in a fairly unique and satisfactory position when we address Middle East issues for reasons referred to already by some of my colleagues here. We are a small country; we were occupied in the past; we have had no colonial history; we were the first country in the world to break away from the British Empire. Neither can we be smeared with any suggestions of anti-Semitism. Therefore, we can look at issues without any hangups about out past.
As well as mentioning Senator Lanigan's activity, I welcome the fact that the conference which took place in Dublin in September was addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. At that conference, I complimented the Minister on his speech. He made a very forthright commitment to achieving peace in the Middle East and he referred to Ireland's special concern for the Palestinian peoples. I welcome that.
There has been a great deal of political movement in Palestinian attitudes to the core issues of a Palestine state over the past couple of years. Until November 1988 one of the big problems was the fact that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation or the Palestine National Council, simply refused to recognise Israel's right to exist. As well as that, they had not renounced terrorism. Whilst that was the case, it gave Israel the opportunity on all occasions to suggest that they could not possibly begin to concede issues for as long as this was the stated Palestinian position. Mind you, the Palestinian position on the question of Israel's right to exist perhaps involved a lot of semantics. In a sense it has certain parallels with this country. Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution refuse to recognise the Border of this country, but there is of course a de facto recognition that there is a different political administration in the North.
Having said all that, in Algiers in November 1988, the Palestine National Council, which is the elected political representation of the Palestinian people, recognised Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism. It was a major and hugely significant step forward. It should have resulted in a parallel response from Israel, but this did not occur, if anything intransigence increased in Israel. This is a highly unsatisfactory position which we must face up to. It is clear that there has to be self-determination for the Palesstinian people and it is equally clear, in granting such self-determination to the Palestinian people, that in parallel there has to be security for the state of Israel. These two things underpin the situation.
I am dealing specifically with the Palestinian question because I regard it as the core issue in the Middle East. The volatility in the situation and the problems in the region are, to a huge extent, a spinoff from instability in Palestine. The huge emigration of Palestinians from their own country into Lebanon and the development of the refugee camps in Lebanon are provoking instability in Lebanon and provoking interventions by Syria. It is also provoking interventions by Israel in Southern Lebanon. It is also not only a destabilising factor in the Middle East but a powder keg in world politics because it is a destabilising factor on the world scene.
Some years ago a group of Irish parliamentarians of whom I was one, had a meeting with Yasser Arafat at a much more controversial time then now. We had a lot of searching questions to ask him because, whilst some of us were in sympathy with the Palestine cause, some methods were being used of which we could be very critical. Like his friends in the United States, we were keen to find out why there was such rapport between the Palestinians and the Russians, for example. You had Palestine with a religious philosophy, whether it was Moslem or Maronite and you had Russia with its atheism and Communism and everything else which should have been very alien. He turned the tables on us very quickly when explaining his rationale for Palestinian rapport with Russia. He quoted Churchill.
He said, "If you blame me, you must blame Churchill". He said Churchill was asked in the Second World War why the UK went into a world war fighting with the Russians on their side. Churchill's simple answer was that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Arafat's and the Palestinian's rationale was very simple; if America, in their view was public enemy number one, any major force opposing America was, by definition, their friend. The whole Palestinian issue goes on to the world scene and becomes a divisive point between the two super-powers. It is a hugely important region.
Sometimes we do not have a full understanding of this Palestinian question. The fact that there is not such a full understanding stems from our own problems on this island vis-á-vis the North. As Senator Murphy very rightly pointed out, there are huge parallels between the Palestinian question and what is happening on this island. There is a tendency in many respectable middle class circles to want to have nothing to do with the PLO or the Palestine National Council because they are perceived as violent organisations. Because of their simplistic view that we cannot kowtow to the IRA and violence in this island we must be consistent — we passionately detest the IRA — so why should we talk to the PLO?
You have, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, to look beneath the surface of the situation. There are very few comparisons. The huge difference at present in this century is that the IRA have no mandate. People who have a mandate have rights. What is happening in Palestine is that you have a displaced people, a people without a country but a people with a huge mandate who have consistently held elections and mandated delegates to what is called the Palestine National Council of which the PLO is a part. That is a mandate from some millions of people. Where is the comparison between a group of people with a mandate from millions of people and a collection of gunmen on this island who have no mandate and do not have a single representative in either of the Houses of this Parliament? There is no comparison whatever.
It is for these reasons, when you get close to the Middle East question, that it is very simple, as an Irish person, to sympathise with the Palestinian people and with their representatives. They have, though a state does not exist, all the trappings of a state. They have elections; they have a red cresent society, hospitals, universities and the leadership in recent years has been moderate. Certainly if there is a follow-up to the suggestion by Yasser Arafat that he might visit Ireland, or that a PLO office might be established in Dublin, as a Member of this House I have no problem whatever identifying with either of those requests. I would welcome such a development, especially after the declaration in Algiers in November 1988.
One of the keys in this Palestinian question is, of course, US attitudes. Given the justice of the cause for Palestinian recognition Israel would not have a fraction of the strength it has in the world political scene without US support. It would crumble in the morning without US support. One of the unfortunate negatives of US foreign policy — if you can describe it as foreign policy — is that this specific Palestinian question has never been an objective foreign policy issue for the United States of America. It has always been regarded as an internal domestic policy issue. They are trying to translate internal subjective domestic political views into an objective foreign policy issue and it just simply cannot begin to happen.
I come from a background of being a great supporter of the United States of America. I come from County Mayo. It has been great to the people of my county. I have studied over there. I admire American policy after the Second World War, the Marshall Plan. There are very few countries where I am as happy as I am in the United States. Having said that I am a fan of the United States of America, a fan of freedom and a fan of what they have done for Ireland, it does not mean that I am going to give blanket approval for all aspects of US foreign policy.
Hear, hear.
Just as some delegates in this House and in the Dáil have a special concern about Central America and for the South American issue, vis-àvis US policy, I have a parallel interest in the Middle East in so far as the Palestinian question is concerned. There has to be more movement by the United States. It is tending to be a little better but if the political will were there to do what is necessary this issue could be resolved very quickly.
I do not agree entirely with my colleague and friend, Senator Conroy, in excusing the Israeli position. What the Senator is saying, more or less, is "a plague on both your Houses, there are two sides to the argument so let us be neutral in regard to the argument."
As I said at the outset we have to look simply at these issues, define them, ask where Ireland and we as parliamentarians stand on these issues. I take the Senator's point that there have been horrific events for the Jews in this century. There has been the holocaust. There has been anti-Semitic activity for centuries and I abhor every bit of that. Of course, Israel needs its place in the sun and there has to be an Israeli state, but solving one huge injustice in this century by starting a second equally huge injustice, in displacing another people is completely unjustified.
I can understand Israeli paranoia. I can understand why there is activity of the nature we see at present, but I do not tolerate it. It cannot be tolerated. It must be explained to them that in the civilised world the activity they are engaging in is internationally unacceptable and all of the barometers of activity unacceptable to Governments in recent years favour the Palestinian side. The resolutions of the United Nations, the subsidiary bodies of the United Nations, the groups for the displacement of peoples, the objective comments by organisations such as Amnesty in recent years are all coming down on one side of the issue. The figures force us to come down on the same side without any apology. In the past two years the statistics tell us that in the Occupied Territories, 650 Palestinians have been killed, and of that 650 about 120 were children under 15 years of age. The casualties of wounded number 10,000 people, 35,000 people have been imprisoned. I would like to draw a few parallels with this island, I am glad that Senator Murphy is here as he can be very forthright and can call a spade a spade when he speaks about the Northern part of this island and southern attitudes to it.
Let us translate what has been happening for the past two years in the Occupied Territories to Northern Ireland. Could we just imagine 650 nationalists killed, 10,000 wounded, 35,000 in prisons and in the vast majority of cases not a gun in sight? The vast majority of these people have been killed for such heinous crimes as throwing stones. My God, if as many as ten people were killed in such circumstances in the past year, we would have riots throughout this island. That is an attempt to put this into perspective and my sympathies are logically, of course, with the Palestinians where this issue is concerned.
The Palestinian people, with all of their problems, have been the most enlightened and the most educated people in the Middle East and when you go down to the Gulf States run by the Emirs you invariably find that at the most senior government level Palestinians are staffing some of the most important positions. It is simply because they have been, and are among the most talented people in the Middle East.
A further obnoxious development in the present policy in the Occupied Territories is that primary and second level schools have been closed. Five universities have already been closed in the West Bank and others continue to be closed.
Six.
Six at the latest count. I am glad to see University College Dublin, Belfield, has a connection with Bethlehem University. It is to be admired. Here we have people without a country who must seek their occupation around the world and if they have flair, intelligence and can grasp at third level education they have a place in the sun in New York, in Copenhagen or even in Dublin. Yet, even that possibly is being taken away from them. For what heinous crime? For getting involved in what might be a parallel with civil rights activities in the North some years ago by John Hume and Austin Currie and the rest of the lads. This is what is happening. If anybody wants to talk about violence in the Middle East, I think they should talk about institutional violence as much as non-institutional violence, to put matters into perspective.
We have had the recent Egyptian initiative. America is beginning to take a more satisfactory line, and there are calls for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, but Israel is resisting this. The Israeli position in the context of world history of negotiations is completely unacceptable and unsustainable. To attempt to have the Palestinian people represented by a group of Palestinians selected by Israel is a farce and must be called a farce. The only people who can decide who will speak for the Palestinian people in these discussions are the Palestinians themselves. The Palestinians have spoken through their elections to the National Council and the leadership of Yasser Arafat. He is the leader of the Palestinian people and is the choice of Palestinians. The Israelis will have to grasp this nettle and settle down to negotiating with Arafat and with the representatives of the Palestine National Council, if there is to be any question of negotiations.
Mind you, again there is an Irish parallel in the history of independence movements. We had an independence movement here in the latter part of the second decade but of course that independence movement had a mandate, and had a succession of elections before Independence in this country and there was favourable public opinion after the executions of 1916 in regard to that political leadership. When the truce came, the British did not have any difficulty negotiating with the leaders of that independence movement. This is, of course, the history of the world and in that context Israel seeking to negotiate with Palestinians who are not representative of their people is simple a farce and should be called a farce. I am proud of the role played by the Irish troops in UNIFIL in southern Lebanon. Here again there have been illegal incursions by Israeli forces in contravention of United Nations resolutions. We have had Irish casualties out there, some of which have been unexplained.
We are at a very exciting stage in European politics. Certainly the Government have a unique opportunity starting on 1 January next when for six months they will effectively be the leaders of the European Economic Community. The member states have their powers, of course, but I think if there is a single aspect of policy in which the President of the Twelve has a really outstanding political role to play, it is not so much in education, industry and commerce or agriculture; it is in the area of foreign policy. Certainly the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have a unique opportunity in the forthcoming six months to seize major initiatives in the Euro-Arab dialogue and the resolution of the Palestinian question. I wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs well at the forthcoming meeting with his European and Arab counterparts in Paris on 21 and 22 December and I wish the Taoiseach and the Minister well in the first six months of next year. Ireland's position as a small non-aligned independent country without a history of colonialism or anti-Semitism, is unique. Indeed in another sense, because of the uniqueness of Irelands rapport with the United States of America we should be able to call a spade a spade. I urge the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, despite how busy they will be during that six months, to treat the Palestinian question as significantly as any other event and seize every initiative to resolve it once and for all.
In asking for a debate on the Middle East, I had fully intended to deal with items of general interest in the Middle East and I had particularly decided to deal with the sad plight and history of Lebanon. Unfortunately, the more I prepared myself for it, the more difficult it was to get away from the Palestinian problem and I now find myself confining my remarks to it. I think it is significant as well, that in the Independent group the six members hold quite different points of view, and certainly there is not agreement between any two of us precisely on the issues. It reflects the complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli situation.
Whatever about the underlying facts of the past history, there are certainties also, which Senator Staunton has just outlined, as happening in the Occupied Territories at present and we must all be made aware of them. I would like to put on the record that the second two weeks in October has been the bloodiest two weeks in the Occupied Territories since the beginning of the intifada over two years ago. Early this morning when I was putting a few notes together for this discussion today I noticed my son Duncan was wearing the Keffiyeh which is the national scarf of Palestine. I grabbed it from him and he went to school without his scarf. The reason I was interested in it is that the wearing of a Keffiyeh scarf which is worn by winding it around the head and around the front of the face now makes young Palestinians liable to be shot on sight by the Israeli troops in the Occupied Territories. In other words, what I hold here is a symbol of destruction for those people in the Occupied Territories at present.
It shows how intolerant we have become that the world has now reached that point where the response can be so terrible, so rapid and so final. I want to put on the record also that in my view whatever the rights and the wrongs, the Palestinians — and nobody took much notice of Palestinians who spent 20 years in refugee camps until 1967 — are a nation without a country, they are a people stripped of their rights. Those are facts. They have neither a country nor the rights of citizenship. It seems that we need to consider how the world will deal with it. I certainly would have some proposals to make on how the Irish Government might take initiatives during its Presidency of Europe.
Over the period of the past two years the frustration of the Palestinian people has manifested itself in the intifada or uprising that has taken place in the Occupied Territories. Because people do not understand in a sense what the intifada is about, I would like to put on the record of the House the message of the intifada, a message from the Palestinian people to Israel, to the United States and to the rest of the world. I think it symbolises and reflects the view, the objectives, the thinking and the spirit of the Palestinian people at this time. It reads as follows:
We will no longer be a subject people. If you order us to disperse, we will assemble.
Shoot us if you will.
If you confine us to our camps, we will roam the countryside.
Dig up our soil and bury us alive in it if you will.
If you direct us to work in your factories, we will confine ourselves to our homes.
Herd us into your concentration camps if you will.
If you instruct us to buy your produce and your products, we will grow and make our own.
Destroy our houses and our gardens if you will.
If you demand taxes from us, we will give you nothing.
Lob tear-gas grenades into our huts if you will.
If you rule that we must carry identity cards, we will carry Palestinian flags.
Cut off our water supply and starve us if you will.
Whatever law you pass we will break, whatever demand you make we will ignore, whatever action you prohibit we will undertake.
Bring out your clubs and steel pipes and break our bones if you will.
When one of us falls, ten will take his place.
Drag ten of us to your jails and you will find a hundred waiting for you when you return.
Break twenty arms, and a storm of stones thrown by a townful of healthy arms will explode around you.
When your bullets make us childless we will adopt the children you have orphaned.
Starve us and we will return to our roots and berries, seal our wells and we will sip the dew, raze our homes and we will live in caves.
You have nothing to gain but our hatred, and our hatred can be costly.
We have nothing to lose but our life, and if this is the life we are destined to have, we offer it gladly.
That is the strong message from the Palestinian people to the rest of the world. In living up to that commitment, to that proclamation of two years ago, we now see the Occupied Territories have really become worse and worse.
It is important, certainly to somebody who would support the right to free speech and the right to open dialogue— I want to put it on the record very firmly because it is one of the points on which I agree very much with Senator Norris— that if we believe in dialogue, it is difficult if not impossible to justify not opening up relations with different countries. I will not put preconditions on one country and not on another. I would prefer to have the representatives of Israel sitting in a gallery listening to the discussion when we raise these points. We could make them listen to our points of view and indeed we could exchange points of view. I feel very strongly about that.
I support the setting up of a PLO office in Dublin and I have been consistently a supporter of their position. I certainly will not be blinded by rhetoric on the question of the need to have dialogue and discussion; a civilised diplomatic way for dialogue and discussion leads itself logically to the need for an embassy. I will now describe what is happening at present in the Occupied Territories.
Senator Staunton referred to the six universities which have been closed in the Occupied Territories. The 12 member states of the European Community have asked that they be re-opened, but they have been ignored. The freedom of the journalistic profession, the right of journalists to continue to do their job and to report what they see, is always a good indicator of the civil or political rights in a country. Eight journalists in the past two years have been expelled from the Occupied Territories. Ten are in detention, three are in prison without being charged, five are awaiting trial and six are in prison for periods of three months to five years. At present it is quite a regular occurrence to have Alsatian and almost killer dogs let loose on young Palestinians.
I could go through a catalogue of nauseating violence which would not advance the argument in any way. I am simply trying to paint the picture that the position in the Occupied Territories is unacceptable to any civilised person in any state in the world. I am trying to present the case purely from the perspective of the Palestinian people because the minute I try to present it from both sides together, we immediately find ourselves arguing about who did what first, when and where it happened, and who took the initiative. What I have reported so far are certainly facts and I want them to be seen as such.
I regret that the Israeli people have never found themselves able to announce that the Palestinian people also have a right to self-determination and independent statehood in their own homeland, or in a homeland, perhaps I should say. Over the past number of years we have seen the renunciation of terrorism by the PLO. I have heard the arguments of people who say: "That is not precisely what Arafat is saying in the Middle East, he is saying it in western Europe". Anybody who has ever been involved in any level of negotiation, representing large masses of people, will recognise that there are always different emphases in the reports given to different places in an attempt to bring people together to a point of agreement.
All of us in the Chamber today have heard in the media, Arafat make his unconditional announcement that he is opposed to terrorism and that there would be no longer acts of violence on behalf of or by the Palestinians. It seems to me that for us as parliamentarians the development must be a political one. It is not so much a matter of looking back into history because history begins at the point most suitable to the person making the argument. On one side or the other somebody can make a prior claim, will not accept the later claim or whatever. We do not seem to have made any progress in trying to find within history a solution to this particular difficulty.
I believe firmly that the resolution of the Middle East conflict will revolve around mutual recognition by both the Palestinians and the Israelis of each other's right to self-determination and independent statehood. That has to be the objective which will be reached and I believe this will only happen through dialogue and political initiative. The determination which is reflected in the intifada which I have read some time back only indicates more clearly than ever that neither side is going to bomb the other into submission. There will be no resolution through violence unless there is total and absolute genocide and it should be recognised that violence in this situation can only have one objective, the objective of genocide. There are no two races in the world who know more about genocide than the Palestinians and the Israelis and it is shocking that they should be locked in this position now, given their history, their experience and what they know.
The UN in recent times endorsed a resolution condemning Israel's repressive practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and urging Israel to observe the provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians under military occupation. It seems sad that civilised member states of the UN have to be subjected to that. It surely is a reflection on all of us that civilisation has not even advanced to the point where states can treat each other with civility and with sympathy.
It seems also that the efforts of the 12 member states and, indeed the US, to get discussion and dialogue going on the possibilities for free and open elections with the involvement of Egypt have totally failed because the Israelis do not seem able to deal with the demands of the rest of the world. As I understand it, the last vote in the UN had only two votes against—Israel and the US. Every other voting state voted in favour of the resolution. Surely the message must be clear that the Israelis are out of step on that particular point? Why not accept it and move forward?
We have seen in the last short period of time a model for withdrawal from Occupied Territories in the Namibian example, where South Africa withdrew from Namibia. The initiative which I would wish our Government to take during the period of its Presidency would be the opening of negotiations which would lead to the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Occupied Territories and the entry of United Nations forces into the Occupied Territories in the same way as it happened in Namibia with the entry of international forces and the continued withdrawal of the occuping forces. That maintains a buffer zone. However, that can only begin following some form of international dialogue which I think, by its nature, will also include an international conference. That would be the easiest beginning: an international conference which would lead to negotiations and agreement on withdrawal of the occupying forces. This would have to begin, obviously, with a partial and gradual withdrawing and this would have to be accompanied by electoral preparations. Therefore, the steps are, a dialogue including an international conference, a gradual and partial withdrawing of the Israeli army accompanied by the election preparations, followed by the complete withdrawal of the Israeli army and the entry of a UN international force.
I believe this must be the beginning of a new initiative and I would propose that our Government would take the lead in this initiative within Europe during the period of our Presidency. There should be no blocks to the opening of dialogue including what I said earlier about an embassy. We should facilitate discussion, communication and dialogue in order that these two states can determine their own future and can have the right to international recognition as independent, legitimate states.
I would like to congratulate the Minister on clearing up a matter of spelling and a matter of grammar. I much prefer his version of the resolution which says that in the "perspective" of Ireland's forthcoming Presidency of the European Community, this House urges the Government to make "every" effort rather than "any" effort to promote peace, understanding and reconciliation in the Middle East. I have no difficulty whatever in supporting this motion but, unlike many of the people who have spoken and unlike many of the civil servants in Iveagh House, I have personal, accurate and detailed knowledge of the situation in the Middle East.
Reference was made to the unique opportunity this country will have during its Presidency of the European Community to play a vital role in moving towards a solution of the Middle East problem. I agree that that possibility exists and I would like to ask the Minister and the civil servants in Iveagh House, why are we then throwing it away? Why are we treated to the spectacle of a Minister for Foreign Affairs clowning about on the international stage, using megaphone diplomacy in New York to shout at Moshe Arens, meeting with Mr. Shamir in France and discussing in one of these casual meetings as part of a Troika a really serious situation in the absence of an Israeli embassy in this country.
It was said we have a proud record that we have no anti-Semitism in this country. I would like to remind this House that James Joyce put that one in perspective in Ulysses when in the episode where Mr. Deasy calls Stephen Dedalus back and says: "Do you know, Mr. Nestor Dedalus, Ireland has the honour to be the only country never to persecute the Jews?" Stephen says he does not know that. He asks him then if he knows why and Stephen does not know that either and he says: "Because she never let them in". We know that she did let them in. We know that in 1904 there was a progrom in Limerick.
It has been suggested that accusations of anti-Semitism are facile and indeed in some circumstances they can be. There is, however, a record of anti-Semitism in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Let us be perfectly honest about it. It is on the public record. I refer, in particular, to the career, for example, of Mr. Patrick Bewley which has lately been uncovered. We have a record in this parliament of anti-Semitism. We have the statements of Oliver Flanagan in 1943 that Hitler had the right idea about the Jews. Let us have a little bit of reassurance that there really is no anti-Semitism involved.
I would like to know from the Minister why it is we do not have an Israeli Embassy. I do not believe the tissue of untruths that has been produced by all Governments and I do not want to make this an attack on a particular political party, so I say all Governments. I have asked some very senior people why there is no embassy and the kind of response I get is fatuous — that it would offend the Arabs or that we have to worry about our exports of beef to Iraq. I do not know why we should worry about them since they do not seem to be too anxious to pay for their beef. I do not believe this is a serious consideration. The Arabs are very practical people. They buy in a market and for particular reasons. I have spoken with my Arab friends and my information is that they are not particularly concerned about that. It was also actually said to me by a former Minister for Foreign Affairs that if we opened an Israeli Embassy here we would have to strip the border of its troops and police in order to defend it. Can anybody seriously accept this as the case? We simply must have an embassy here. It is insulting and it leads to the kind of performance that we had today, for example, from the Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan.
Senator Lanigan referred to the Government, in inverted commas, of Israel. I may refer, although I have great regard for the Minister, to his obtuseness in a previous debate in persistently referring to Palestine as a state whereas, particularly at that time, there was no such state. We were actually referring to the state of Israel, a friendly state, with whom we have diplomatic relations although no accredited ambassador resident in this country.
It is absurd that we have an embassy from Iran in Dublin yet we insulted the Israelis by keeping their representative, Bruce Kashdan, on a two-weekly basis in the Berkeley Court Hotel. I would like an explanation of that. May be there is no anti-Semitism involved. I just wonder. Maybe we are waiting for a nod from the Vatican. Is that the case, I would like to ask the Minister? I see him shaking his head but I would like to be convinced of it.
I would like also to say that these questions should most properly be asked in a foreign affairs committee and I urge the Minister to consider the possibility of the establishment of a Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is clear that we ought to have one in order to investigate policy that appears to be made by civil servants without any accountability to either this House or the Dáil.
I speak from a position of personal knowledge of the situation in the Middle East. I have a lot to say in criticism of the Israeli Government. I am inhibited, to a certain extent, because of the lack of balance obtaining in this country. I could not help noticing that a number of the Senators quoted extensively from the briefings provided by the Palestine Information Office, an organ of the PLO. I heartily approve of that. I receive them myself. I go to the briefing sessions held by the Palestine Information Office and I applaud the work of Seán Ryan in that office. However, it was also noticeable that there was no suggestion that anybody was either in receipt of or paying any attention to the parallel briefing documents issued by BIPAC on behalf of the Israeli Government. It seems regrettable that this lack of balance which Senator O'Toole——
On a point or order, could Senator Norris not stick to what we actually said? We quoted actual statistics of people killed and people wounded and of facts regarding universities. Let us deal with the facts. Are these facts? The source is irrelevant.
If Senator Staunton wishes to provoke the kind of idiotic parallels that he did with the North of Ireland, for example, I might remind the Senator that there were more than 650 people killed in the North of Ireland over the last few years and if he is unaware of that then he does not even know his own country, let alone the Middle East.
On a point of order, by way of correction, I quoted 650 Palestinians who were killed within the last two years and I drew a parallel with that number of disasters in the North.
That is not a point of order.
It is important that there should be balance. In pursuit of this I go very frequently, several times a year, to the Middle East and not just to Israel. I feel very strongly for the people of Lebanon, which I have visited. I have been in Beirut during a mortar bombardment. I witnessed the splendid performance of our troops in Lebanon and it is something of which we can be very proud. I have been to Jordan, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and it interests me that nobody thought fit to refer to the fact that King Hussein of Jordan mopped up 20,000 Palestinians over a weekend, an exercise which led to the creation of the Black September.
People seem to be very partial. I try to be at least as balanced as I can. I am aware of Deir Yassin, the village that was destroyed in 1948 by the Israelis, but then I am also aware of Kiriat Shmona where the PLO came in and machine-gunned school children. I am aware of the breaking of arms and it was shameful, absolutely shameful, and I deplore the breaking of arms of civilians by the Israeli army. That message went very successfully around the world on the television images. I am also aware that one of the Palestinian organisations was behind the massacre of Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village. It is inappropriate to just build up these scores. We have got to start from basics.
The basic premise from which I start is that the state of Israel must exist and must continue to exist. I have come to that conclusion for the same reasons that Golda Meir came to it. After the experience of the Jewish people over the last 2,000 years of being in minorities in so many Christian countries, it is perfectly clear that it is dangerous for them to be universally in that position, that there must be one country where they command a majority. I regret this very much because that makes Israel a theocratic state and I deplore that, but, after all, we are in a theocratic State here. Senator Murphy descanted about the problematic situation of the Jews regarding themselves as the chosen people yet we here have a Constitution which derives its executive function from the notion of the Trinity, an obscure theological notion which I defy the Attorney General to put a legal construction upon that would stand up in court. I do not think we should be too uppity regarding the Israeli situation. I take it that Israel must exist for these very good reasons.
There are also, however, duties placed upon the Israelis. I would also agree with Mrs. Meir when she indicated that she felt that because of the difficult situation in the Middle East a particular moral leadership had to come from the top. Here I have to say that quite a lot of the criticism that is levelled against Israel is justified in this area. I specify, in particular, that here was an incident in the last couple of years where one of the settlers was leading a group of hikers through the West Bank and an incident occurred in which a girl member of this party was shot dead. Mr. Shamir instantly pronounced judgment upon this situation, used a biblical anathema, called for the destruction of the village and it was partially destroyed. It was subsequently discovered that the man leading this party had been a known troublemaker, had provoked rows with the Arabs on previous occasions and that the bullet that killed the girls was a ricochet bullet from his gun. It seems to me that this is a situation in which Mr. Shamir ought, first of all, to have publicly withdrawn his statement and, secondly, it would not have done any harm at all if he resigned.
I would like to say that these views would be shared by quite a sizeable number of people in Israel. As I say, I have recently been there. I have spoken with people in the Shalom Acshav movement, the Peace Now movement. I spoke with senior personnel in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice and when I was down in the Gaza Strip, in Gaza City and Djiballiyah, I drew the fruits of my experience, to their attention and asked them to rectify some of these problems.
I went in the earlier part of the summer on a private visit, but I made the decision to contact the PLO office here and asked them if there was anything they thought I should see. As a result of that, I joined a group of Irish parliamentarians that went down to Djiballiyah and Gaza Strip and I was very moved by what I saw. I brought it back and I spoke to the people in the Israeli Government about it, but there are a couple of things that trouble me. If we are so determined to be helpful to the Palestinians, there are practical things we can do. The work of UNWRA, the United Nations Works and Relief Association, is very important. Why are we not making a special contribution to it if our hearts are bleeding so much about the Palestinian people? There is a lot that could be done. There is a group of very fine medical doctors operating in difficult conditions. Why do we not support them directly, as we can do, through the UNWRA operation in Vienna?
I was a little bit concerned by the attitude of some of the people who went down with me, because as we passed one of the Palestinian encampments, one of my co-travellers on the bus said: "All they need to put over that gate is "Arbeit Macht Frei". That displays to my mind a shattering incomprehension of the disparity of scale between the deliberate, calculated, methodical and scientific liquidation of six million people and the admittedly tragic situation that currently exists in the Middle East.
I also have to say that I was very glad to hear Senator Conroy's reasoned and balanced contribution. I would like to place on the record of the House that I believe that President Arafat, as I think he is now styled, is a statesman. I applaud his move towards peace and I believe, as the Minister does, that the Israeli Government will have to sit down with him at the end of the day. As far as I am concerned, as a friend of Israel, and I will continue to tell them this, the sooner the better.
I would also have to say that I would be more convinced by Mr. Arafat if he took the legal step of removing the threat and the ambition of the destruction of Israel from the charter that established the PLO. It is one thing to say it on radio and television, it is another to give legal effect to it. I very much hope that Mr. Arafat will find the opportunity and courage — I believe he has plenty of courage and I think he now has the opportunity — to move in this direction. I think he will find response if he does so, certainly from the Israeli people.
I know most of the Arab countries. I love their people and I have also personally intervened successfully on behalf of Palestinians who were being ill-treated in Israel, something I am not sure too many people here have done or indeed are aware of the possibility of this kind of movement. Look at the surrounding countries, when we are preaching to Israel. Let us look at our friend Iraq, who did not bother too much; it did not take a feather out of them to bomb their own civilians with gas and wipe out 5,000 of them in an afternoon. Look at the situation in Iran, look at the situation in Lebanon. I remember Beirut on the day that President Sadat got a more or less predictable reception for his wonderfully courageous initiative in peace. They shot him. I remember the celebration that went on on the streets of Beirut on that day. I remember the thirst for blood. I remember in contradistinction to that, when the Israeli commander in Lebanon stood idly by, to adapt Mr. Jack Lynch's phrase, and allowed the Christians to go in and start wiping out their fellow Lebanese. There were 400,000 Israeli citizens on the streets of Tel Aviv within a matter of days protesting against this action. I would like to see that kind of response in any of the Arab countries. I would like to point out that 400,000 people represents 10 per cent of the country.
I deplore a lot of what has been happening in Israel. I am not going to try to defend the indefensible. I have many friends in Israel who do not share the Government policies and who would wish to push what is, after all, the only democracy in the Middle East — let us not lose sight of that fact — in the direction of negotiations with Mr. Arafat directly. I accept absolutely, without reservation, that the PLO clearly appears to represent the Palestinian people. I do not think that is arguable and I do not think it is sensible for the Israelis to attempt to select the tame Palestinians they are prepared to talk to. You must talk directly to those people who can deliver and in that I certainly agree with the Minister. There must be discussions directly with Mr. Arafat.
I can understand the difficulties of the Israelis because they have been constantly under siege since the day of the foundation of the State in 1948. Again, let us remember that the Arab countries lost no time in throwing out the residual Jewish population in all the Arab countries, or virtually all of them. I have to say that I hope there will be a positive response.
In a way this is sort of personal anecdote but on the day I was on the Peace Train, shuttling between two stations in the North of Ireland, a close personal friend of mine who is an Israeli Jew, attempted to enter the closed town of Beit Sahour near Bethlehem. He was prevented by the military. He then took the opportunity to walk over the hill into the village and spoke to the headman and apologised as an Israeli Jew for what the Government were doing in his name to those people. I believe that spirit exists among the people of Israel and I think they deserve some kind of civilised response from our Government. I speak particularly of the establishment of an Israeli Embassy.
With regard to all these statistics, they are true, shameful, but they are nothing on a scale to what has gone on in the Arab countries themselves. I have to say that on a human level I deplore it but I can understand something of the psychology of the Israelis, and I will illustrate that if I may. On my most recent visit — I was back about six weeks — I had occasion to travel frequently on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway. As the Minister will know, during the early part of the summer a Palestinian whom I certainly do not regard as representative, I think the man was probably a lunatic, seized the wheel of a bus, shouting Allah Akhbar and turned the wheel of the bus and plunged it down a ravine, killing about 11 people. A similar incident occurred during the period I was in Israel but the man was prevented from causing the bus to go over the cliff. The next day I was on the bus and two Japanese people got on looking very grotty and with backpacks. There were two Israeli old ones, as I can only describe them, behind me and one of them said to the other, "they should not let those people on the bus, they should have passes for them". I shuddered because that woman had spoken what I was thinking and I felt very ashamed of myself but at least I understood how easy it is to into this frame of mind, if you are being subjected perpetually to external threat.
I suggest that we attempt to understand the Israeli attitude which is unhelpful, frequently undiplomatic, and we should attempt to use our good offices to bring people together, to bring the two sides of the conflict together. I believe there is a role for us, that we could do it, but it is perfectly clear to me that, for some obscure reason, we are resisting an historic opportunity, because I suspect, on very good grounds, of a certain mentality in Iveagh House, I wish we had the opportunity through a Foreign Affairs committee to make sure that this is not the case. I can assure Senators it would not be comfortable having an Israeli Embassy here.
I remember arranging a briefing of Members of both Houses under the auspices of our Foreign Affairs committee. About one-third of the people who came were pro-Israeli, one-third were neutral and one-third were anti. At the end of the briefing every single person was anti-Israeli because the diplomat, so-called, sat there and when any reasonable question of the kind that was asked here painfully today emerged, he stood up, wagged his finger and doused them in statistics, whereas our friends — I genuinely mean our friends — in the PLO wrap their arms around you, invite you to an evening of Palestinian food and say: "Oh, my brother, it grieves me that the situation of conflict exists but we must try," and so on. They are right. Diplomatically, Israelis are often wrong-headed, but for reasons of history, morality and our own consciences we must help to make sure that the Israeli state survives.
I would like to finish with one practical point. Why, even from the point of view of self-interest, did we throw this opportunity down the drain with such disgraceful discourtesy, with such lamentable lack of wit and tact? The Irish may not be aware of the full ramifications of this. A lot of people, even TDs, were not aware that the Israelis were expected to conduct a diplomatic situation with no embassy here, no resident ambassador while we have so many Arabs present here. They did not know what we were turning down in terms of international trade, in terms of scientific and technological development; that we were turning our backs on the expansion of a whole range of biomedical research of horticulture where the Israelis could have made a massive contribution to the development of this economy. Would that not be a lot better than unpaid for beef which we appear to have got ourselves tangled in knots over ensuring.
These are a whole series of questions. I do not want to try to take more time than the other Senators as it would be unbalanced. I am grateful for the latitude I have been allowed in presenting what remains, unfortunately, a lonely case in this country. I have no difficulty at all with the motion as re-phrased and, given a certain grammatical fluency by our ever-competent Minister. I hope that my sharp words will hit home with his, shall I say, master or should I say masters?
I had not intended making a contribution but listening to the very fine contributions of my fellow Senators I was reminded that not merely are Arabs and Jews involved in conflicts there, but there are also Christians. I want to place on the record of the House the tremendous work that has been done by the Irish Association of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in building and furnishing a modern up-to-date maternity hospital in Bethletham 2,000 years after our Saviour was born there. This Irish effort goes unnoticed and unsung. I would like to pay tribute to this organisation for having done so.
I welcome the support which Senators have given the motion and the support they have given to the Government's efforts to assist the peace process in the Middle East. I will examine very carefully the comments and suggestions that have been made by Senators which will be of benefit to the Government in their examination and their efforts for a peaceful settlement of the problems in the Middle East.
I would like to reply and touch upon, very briefly in the time allotted to me, some of the matters that have been raised in the debate. I am safe in saying that every Senator who spoke — I will not mention names because everybody mentioned this — referred to the question of hostages, particularly Brian Keenan. I appreciate the concern Senators have expressed concerning the continuing holding of hostages. Most Senators are aware that the Government have made determined efforts to seek the release of all the hostages, in particular Brian Keenan. We shall continue to take every opportunity presented to us to secure his release.
Senator Costello does not seem to be aware of what has been done. I will refer briefly to it. The Government have made representations to every country that might have been able to exert any influence over those holding Brian Keenan. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has, since his appointment — and his predecessor — had an intensive round of discussions with Middle East leaders at the United Nations, where concern for Brian Keenan was high on the agenda. Our embassies in the region are also active in bringing our interest in Mr. Keenan's case and in his release to the fore. Senator Costello spoke of the public perception. It is important that the efforts that have been made are put on the record.
Senator McDonald spoke of the Western Sahara. Senator Conroy also mentioned it. The Twelve can contribute to the peaceful realisation of the objective of a referendum on self-determination by reminding all of the parties concerned that they are bound by the terms of this year's General Assembly resolution on the Western Sahara, which was adopted, for the first time in many years, by consensus. I can assure the House that during our Presidency we will press the point that commitment to the substance of the UN resolution is implied by joining the consensus on it. In this case, the strong emphasis is on the need for the continuation of direct dialogue between the two parties to the conflict and the importance of the agreement to hold a referendum on self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.
Many Senators in their contributions concentrated on the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli problem. In particular, Senators Murphy, O'Toole and Norris concentrated much of their contributions on this issue. I have tried in my speech to be as fair as possible.
I would like to refer to remarks made by Senators Murphy and Staunton in relation to what they saw as a comparison with the situation in the North. Could I very respectfully suggest to both Senators that there cannot be a mini or minor brutality? It exists as it is. Any government worth their name must not practise the type of actions that are generally preferred by terrorists. We have set out what has happened in the Occupied Territories and I make no apology for doing so. We have decried the shooting of children no matter which side do it. I would like to emphasise that. Senator Norris, in particular, seemed to think that the Government have laid emphasis on one side only. We have not, and I would like to reassure him of that. We condemn and cannot condone the atrocities that have been carried out by both sides.
The Government and, indeed, the Twelve, have shared the concern expressed by many Senators on human rights in certain countries in the region. Senator Norris detailed some of the things that have happened. We have been very active in making representations and démarche in support of the rights of individuals and of minorities. We have also tried to improve the general climate of respect for human rights and are pleased to see some advances. One advance, albeit a small one, that I might mention, is the welcome prospect that Iran will accept a visit by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights. In my view, such actions by Iran can only help to improve its political relations with the Twelve. I have noted the good wishes of all the Senators who contributed to our troops in UNIFIL. I can assure the Seanad that I will make certain that they are passed on through the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence. Without trying to be political, Senator Costello mentioned, in terms that were somewhat critical, the question of the representative body being sought by the Defence Forces. I would like to remind Senator Costello that this problem is being reviewed by a committee which has been set up. This is the first time this has been done, as the Minister for Defence pointed out to the Dáil. Without being political, I would like to remind him that he was a member of a party who were in Government for four years and did nothing about it.
He is not answering back.
Senators Murphy, Conroy, Norris and O'Toole laid emphasis on what they conceived to be the fundamental problems. I am not sure if it was Senator Murphy or Senator Conroy who spoke about the fact that many of these states were carved out without any recognition of the underlying cultures, religions or backgrounds and that from that quite a bit of the problem has stemmed. I can understand, as has been mentioned by many Senators, the difficulties and turmoils. I can understand the situation in which some countries find themselves and I can understand their attitude because of what has happened in the past but nobody — and in fairness, all Senators reflected this view — can condone, and, indeed, we must always condemn, the actions of all sides that are against the normal traditions of governments or, indeed, peoples, in trying to deal with situations.
Senator O'Toole started the ball rolling when he touched on an old problem of Senator Norris. Could I, first of all, refute as strongly as I possibly can, the suggestion by Senator Norris that there is antiSemitism in the Department of Foreign Affairs? It is unfair to the civil servants who are there and were there. Of course, there have been isolated cases here and I am the first to admit it and also the first to deplore it.
Senator Norris misses the core of the question although he acknowledged it later, albeit in a less than forthright way. He knows, as I know, that there are diplomatic relations between Israel and Ireland. He knows, as I know, that the Israeli Ambassador is accredited to this country from London, that he presents his credentials to President Hillery and that he has the same powers as any ambassador who is resident here. We have gone into the whys and the wherefores and I would like to reiterate that the question of a resident Israeli Ambassador in Dublin is under consideration. The Taoiseach reported on this to the Dáil last week.
There is nothing further I can add to his statement except to reiterate it, in case people may feel that because the Ambassador is resident in London, he has not got the powers others have. Many other ambassadors accredited to this country have their residences in London. Some of them have their residences much further afield. That still does not stop them from playing a full diplomatic part in the affairs of their countries. Senator Norris' scenario in relation to what might be available to this country in relation to trade and other things is not true. I would hate to think that the State of Israel would stop trading with Ireland because they have not got a diplomat resident here. I do not think, in fairness to them, that that is the situation.
On a point of information, there is only one resident Arab ambassador in Dublin.
We will get another.
The Senator is out of order.
Could I just come to that point again? I like to be helpful to Senator Norris and to give him any information I can. There is a Palestinian information office in Dublin which is a private, nondiplomatic office. What is under consideration at the moment is the question of a visa for a head of that office. It is a non-diplomatic office and has not got any of the powers that the Israeli Ambassador has, even though he is in London. I would like to reassure Senator Norris on that and offer it as information to Senator Costello who raised it also.
The theme of many contributions was on the lines of what I said in my contribution, that the problems of Lebanon cannot be solved without a more general settlement in the Middle East where long-standing conflicts remain fraught with danger for overall international peace and security. Ireland has been able, to do something, particularly as a member of the European Community Troika. Here again, I am afraid I have to take issue with Senator Norris because he talked about the Minister for Foreign Affairs running around making comments in small rooms. I may be doing him a little injustice there. The Troika is a very powerful unit. It represents the Presidency of the Foreign Affairs Council, France, Spain and Ireland. It is a very powerful unit within the European Community. Any efforts that we can make thorugh the Troika, either now, during our Presidency, or at this time next year, we will continue to make.
We, as a Government, and past Governments, have recognised Israel's right to exist in security. That has been the core of our policy but, as has been pointed out, the PLO have made a positive step forward by renouncing their position and by effectively making the position, which has been advocated by the Twelve, their position, that is that any lasting, comprehensive or just settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict must do two things. It must guarantee security for Israel and it also must guarantee self-determination for the Palestinian people.
The 12 members of the European Community approach the resolution of the Middle East problems from the viewpoint of the rights of all people — let me emphasise all people — in the region to live in peace and security with justice. As a small country, as was mentioned by many Senators, without any large vested interest in the area, we have a particular contribution to make to the Twelve's policy. We will also have an opportunity, during our Presidency, to play an even greater role. I can reassure the Seanad that we shall avail of that opportunity to the full, to seek any initiative to help formulate a lasting and peaceful solution to the problems of the Middle East.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
On Wednesday next, at 2.30 p.m. I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive address to the motion. There are people who would suggest that Middle East motions are not appropriate. I believe that it is very appropriate that we should discuss a motion of this nature. I thank the Senators who contributed to it. I want particularly to thank the Minister for the manner in which he addressed the motion.
I would also like to add my voice to that. The contribution that the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs has made to discussion in this House over a period of time deserves to be noted. Whether we agree or disagree with things that he puts forward, his wealth of information and, indeed, his availability, has added signficantly to the level of debate here. Could I suggest that we take a sos until 2.30 p.m. and then take the Adjournment matter?
Before we do that, may I agree with what Senator O'Toole has said about the Minister?
Sitting suspended at 1.55 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.