Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Oct 2000

Vol. 164 No. 6

Middle East Conflict: Statements.

Mr. Lanigan

It is a privilege and an honour to open the debate and it is timely that we should discuss the problems in the Middle East. I have been involved in this area for a long time and nobody could say I am anything but non-neutral. I have been a supporter of the Palestinian cause since the early 1960s. The reason for this is what I perceived as a wrong which was done to a group of people in the Middle East who had the right of tenure and involvement and who had been in the area for many years.

There is no point in going back in history to outline why the Balfour Declaration was made and why, before and during the Second World War, there was a pogrom against the Jews in Europe. There is no doubt that what happened in Europe in the last century is the cause of what is now happening in the Middle East.

For millennia people of different religions and no religion lived in Palestine without very many problems, other than the normal problems which occur in any society. Many people do not realise or want to acknowledge that Israel is one of three states in the world set up by UN vote. Since it was set up in this way I would expect it to accept the rules, regulations and responsibilities attached to this. However, Israel has not accepted this responsibility. Rather it has tried at all times to eliminate the Palestinians from the land they originally lived in. People think this conflict is centuries old or that it dates back to biblical times. However, this is not true; it concerns the ownership of land and the elimination of people from their own land.

About five years ago, when an estate in Tipperary was being taken over, I was visited by a group of people in Kilkenny who were very militant in saying they were the original owners of the estate. The group produced maps, bills and various other documents, with the claim to ownership going back 500 years. These people from Ballingarry, Thurles and Clonmel were criticising the fact that the State was going to allow the takeover of this land. In Palestine the situation dates back to the 1940s. Before he died, I brought my father to where he came from but we were unsuccessful in our attempt to find exactly where he was born. He was very upset by the visit and I was also upset.

In the Middle East the proposal is peace for land, or land for peace, and anybody would suggest that as the way forward. However, the Israelis have not agreed this is the way forward.

I have kept my mouth closed in the House for the past two or three years about what I wanted to say on the Middle East process as I felt it was best to leave the Israelis and Palestinians to solve their own problems. Of course their problems were being dictated to by the intervention or help of the United States. Ireland and the US have a huge affinity. A huge number of people in the US will vote on 7 November, not on the issue of Palestine but for a president whom they think will give them what they want. Nevertheless, the US is the broker in the equation between the Israelis and Palestinians, and I understand another invitation has been issued to President Barak and Yasser Arafat to again go to the US to discuss a peaceful resolution of the situation. I do not think this can work. Europeans should have a bigger say in what happens in the area.

Ireland should have a greater say in what happens in that area given that it is much closer to the region than the Americans. We have a trade relationship with Israel which is beneficial to both Europe and Israel. Trade relations should not be open-ended to the extent that the Israelis have tried in every way possible to break the spirit of the agreement. They will not allow European involvement because they believe Europe is more pro-Palestinian than the current power brokers in the area, the Americans.

Might is right in the Middle East at present, particularly on the Israeli side. They say they must respond with bullets when stones are thrown and that Chairman Arafat is putting the children of Palestine in front of the bullets. I would not like to have grown up in two generations of poverty and deprivation while living in Gaza or any of the other territories. It is not very nice to have to be in home at 8 p.m. and not be able to leave between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m., when one's parent may have to queue in a cattle pen to go to work in a menial job in Israel. If one misses the bus when returning home, one may be shot because of being in Israel illegally at night. These children grow up in an atmosphere of deprivation and become adults much sooner than children who live in Ireland.

I abhor the fact that Israeli children were in the army and had guns on their backs at the age of 15 or 16. Many years ago in Gaza, I saw children playing cowboys and Indians, like normal children, but they had real guns. There is no point my getting up here as a pro-Palestinian and saying we can solve the problems of the region in this House. That will not happen. Reasonable people must begin to talk. If the Israelis backed off just 200 to 300 metres in certain areas in Gaza and the West Bank, many problems would be resolved. Instead they are trying to persuade Ariel Sharon to take part in a government of national reunification.

I have been visiting the Lebanon for many years. When Mr. Sharon was head of the invasion troops going into the Lebanon in 1982, while thousands of people in Sabra and Shatila were being killed, he said he was wiping his hands of the problem and that the Christians were killing them. The intention to bring this man back into Government is not acceptable internationally or from a human rights perspective. While Mr. Sharon paid a private visit to the Temple Mount, he was accompanied by 1,500 Israeli soldiers. This was 500 more than the Pope had when he visited the area. Perhaps the Pope is not as important as Mr. Sharon. Mr. Sharon was contacted from Mr. Barak's home, in the presence of very senior Palestinian people, and asked not to make that visit, yet this man is now being asked to go into government with Mr. Barak.

There is no point pretending this problem will be resolved easily. Everyone acknowledges the right of the Israelis to live in their own country in peace and harmony, but they must live in peace and harmony with their neighbours. People think of settlements as little encampments in various places. These settlements are major cities. At one time when I was in Israel, I saw a convoy of 50 or 60 buses filled with émigrés from Russia being brought around Israel to places where they might "settle". These people did not want to be placed in the middle of a Palestinian area but they were forced to go where they got cheap houses. Approximately 25% of houses built in the settlements were never occupied.

I want to see peace in this region and to see the Israelis and Palestinians live together. This will not happen unless might and right can meet in the middle. There is no doubt that Mr. Barak, together with the Americans, can bring about this peace. Europeans, including Ireland, should seek an equitable solution to this problem which will not be solved unless there is give and take on both sides. Young Palestinians are now doing all the taking, while Israeli might is doing all the giving.

Anyone who believes the Israelis do not have the might to win the war is a fool. They have the might. They can win the war but they can never win the hearts and minds of the people with whom they will have to live for the next thousand years. These are the Ashkenasic and Sephardic Jews. The Ashkenasim were forced from eastern Europe by Britain and Germany to a difficult land. They take the Bible as an absolute. Nothing is absolute and the Israelis will have to live with the Palestinians for the remainder of the next millennium.

Unless both sides come together, we will be discussing this issue for the next 25, 35 or 40 years. In the meantime, thousands of people will be killed in an effort by a nation created by the United Nations to dominate a nation which existed for millennia.

Ms Keogh

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank him for stepping into the breach. However, I protest at the way the House has been treated and at the fact that the debate could not begin at the appointed time.

We have recently read headlines referring to clashes in Jerusalem and to peace hanging in the balance. The Middle East presents a depressing news item at this time and we are a far cry from the days of the Oslo agreement in 1993 when we thought the formula to achieve peace had been found. Since then there has been so much hope but recent events make one realise how easy it is to destroy peace and how difficult it is to build it up.

There are parallels in our own country. We should not be surprised to see people who face each other with daggers drawn. We need only look 100 miles up the road at what has been going on in our own country. Thankfully, we believe we have found a solution to our problem but the situation remains on the brink. We should not be surprised at the enormous difficulties encountered by those who are trying to achieve peace.

A few weeks ago I stood in the Holocaust museum in Berlin. Although there is no art in this wonderful building yet, it is a wonderful monument. I reflected on what I had read about the setting up of the Israeli state in 1948 and the determination of the great leaders of that time. One of these was Golda Meir, whose autobiography I read some years ago. It is easy to empathise with the hopes and dreams of those people, particularly when we consider the Holocaust and the great suffering of the Jewish people.

Senator Lanigan has referred to the other side of the story. The displacement of many of the Arab peoples to different parts of the world and to a disparate foundling Palestinian state brought its own human tragedy and suffering. There has been huge suffering on both sides and a great depth of passion has been ingrained in people over many years, exactly as has been the case in Ireland. It is difficult to deal with these issues because emotions run high and it is difficult to stand back and be objective. Pictures of helicopter gun ships and the killing of children tug at the heart strings. People in the Arab world speak of child martyrs and it is difficult to broker peace in such an atmosphere.

It is no harm to remind ourselves of the hopeful times of the Oslo agreement and the multilateral conference in Madrid. There was talk in Madrid of resolving the difficulties between Israel and its Arab neighbours and of dealing with arms control and economic development. Those two issues remain to be dealt with and we should be dealing with them. It is right to look to the EU in this regard. Who is selling the arms to Israel and its neighbouring states? We could look to our neighbour, Britain. Who is showing up this aspect of the problem? We must ask who benefits from war. We should be very critical of the sale of arms. We are unique in being able to point the finger at other countries in this regard. In many others instances we cannot afford to do this. What is the effect of the arms race? It is the killing of little children on both sides. We know all too well in Ireland that no one is safe from the bullet or the bomb.

The subsequent Oslo agreement, the concessions made, the recognition of the PLO by Israel, the acceptance of land for peace by Israel and the recognition of Israel by the PLO were tremendous achievements. We have followed the ups and downs of the peace process since then.

Senators Lanigan and Norris are more familiar than I with the Middle East. My interest stems from the fact that my late father was one of the first Irish observers in Lebanon in 1958. As a young child I saw my father go with great hope of what he could give as a peacemaker and we are still talking about the possibility of peace. There have been great achievements and we must pay tribute to the people who have been prepared to risk their political careers and their lives in the thrust for peace in the Middle East.

It is difficult for President Arafat who seems to be embracing the more fundamental elements of Hamas. How can we rescue him from that? We are alarmed that Mr. Sharon is in Government with Prime Minister Barak and we reflect on the inflammatory visit to Jerusalem. How can we alleviate that situation? We should let the United States act as a broker if that can provide a forum for peace. One must never stop trying in the cause of peace. It is too easy to give in to the people of violence and it is something we must never do. We have not done it in our own country. There are many people in the Middle East who will not allow that to happen and I hope they will hold sway.

It is good to discuss these issues in order to illustrate the depth of feeling in this country about them. We do not have answers. We can only facilitate the efforts for peace. We must do this within the context of the European Union. We must support those who bring forward peace initiatives.

It is dreadful to read that 131 lives have been lost. These people lost their lives because there is no peace agreement in place. The fact that most were Palestinians indicates the might of the State of Israel. The moderation shown at the recent summit of Arab leaders is to be welcomed. I hope it will be a further incentive to the Palestinian people to place their trust in their leaders and encourage them to come back to the table to seek a peaceful resolution so that they and their children can live in peace and no more children will have to die.

Mr. Norris

This is a very difficult debate for any of us who feels strongly about and has connections in this region. I offer my sympathy and I am sure that of the House to the people of Israel and the people of Palestine, both of whom have suffered in this appalling situation. The historical perspective has been referred to and I am glad to say that this is a more tempered debate than others in which I have taken part in this House. I am not sure how useful it is to go back over all the historical perspective because it is a tangled skein; there are rights on both sides. There are also very clear parallels with the situation in Ireland.

Europe should have a role in this issue for a number of reasons. I applaud President Clinton who has worked extremely hard from a position of principle and conviction, but I am not sure that any more can be done from that angle for a number of reasons. He is coming to the end of his presidency and the future in America is a little obscure in electoral terms and by one side he is not regarded as neutral. There is no question that Palestinians regard him as partisan in the cause of Israel. This casts certain questions over the role of America.

We owe it to the people in the region to become properly involved because we did solve certain of our problems. For this reason not only should we seek to have a greater degree of political involvement – I welcome the proposed visit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, to the area – we ought to be prepared to pay for it. One does not get a seat at a table for nothing. This is critical because one of the unresolved problems is the situation of Palestinian refugees. It is not practical to imagine that they can all physically go back. It is very sad, but it is a fact; it is not possible. I was very interested in watching Faisal Husseini on television last night. If one decoded it, that was more or less what he was saying. He was saying, "Look at the Jewish people; how many of them are there? Even with the law of return, only a proportion will come back to Israel.". It is not feasible or practical, therefore, for all the Palestinians to go back. The Palestinian negotiators know this too.

Can one distress a people such as this without any form of compensation? Those involved in the distress are not just the people who established the State of Israel, they are the Europeans as well. There is a clear moral obligation on the European Union, particularly if it wishes to have a seat at this table, to be involved meaningfully in the negotiations. The price ticket should be involvement in the compensation of Arab refugees. Even from a practical point of view, it is necessary because if one has a large discontented and disadvantaged group, it is a recipe for trouble. The two peoples in the area have to live together, share things and resolve the problems. This is difficult, particularly in a polarised situation.

I will not go back over the whole historical perspective, but I was very sad, not surprised, to see a couple of reports in The Irish Times today, the first of which is by Deaglán de Bréadún under the heading, “Palestinians now haunt the international conscience as Jews once did”, in which he quotes a very interesting man, Professor Israel Shahak, a survivor of Belsen concentration camp, from which he was released when he was 13 years old. He is a highly intelligent man and thinks that world public opinion will cut no ice with the Israelis: “They have the US on their side. They can disregard public opinion.” As a strong friend and supporter of Israel, I caution against that approach. In the long term it is highly dangerous to disregard public opinion. This, again, raises a question mark about US as opposed to European intervention.

Directly underneath there is an article which shows how widely this conflagration of opinion has spread. There is a quotation from the imam of a mosque near Barcelona who is reported as saying, "Hitler realised that the Jews were taking all Germany's wealth. He wasn't mad, nor was he stupid. He merely administered insecticide on the [Jewish] worms so that the German plant could flourish". That is very dangerous. We need to try to take the temperature down and understand the difficulties in the situation.

I am glad to note that we have in the Visitors' Gallery two distinguished people, Dr. Yousef Allan, from the Palestinian side, and Mr. Boaz Rodkin, from the Israeli embassy. I express my admiration for both teams in the recent negotiations because they both took huge risks. I hope they will continue to pursue the difficult road of peace. It is extraordinary to look at what Prime Minister Barak was prepared to do. He was virtually committing political suicide within his own context by going as far as he did. It seemed that there was a real chance that they were within a hair's breadth of moving much farther forward towards a resolution in the weeks before the explosion. That is the route that must be travelled.

There is no question or doubt that there are parallels with this country. One of the two principal and appalling incidents which helped to inflame public opinion was the shooting of a 12 year old boy, which was inexplicable. There must be a proper impartial inquiry. There are certain clear dangers from the Israeli side because if a report comes out that is critical of Israel, it could be used as further fuel to the flames, especially where the Palestinian side appears to have uncorked the bottle and let the genie out, especially in terms of the release of the Hamas bombers. That was extremely regrettable, but we must honourably, honestly and openly face the truth.

I was in Israel at the time this was going on in the immediate aftermath of Sharon's visit. Although a friend of Israel, I regarded that visit as provocative. There was no other word and no excuse for it. With his background, it was particularly dangerous. Ariel Sharon was, however, strongly criticised by the report produced by Israel after Sabra and Chatila and I have yet to see anything like it on the other side. There is a degree of criticism which places persons like myself in a great difficulty because if one tries to take a balanced position when the other side is not prepared to be balanced, one can appear to be treacherous towards the very people one wants to help towards a broader view of the situation. Unfortunately, that is a risk I have to take as a result of my experience in the Middle East.

When I got home to Jerusalem from a visit to Cyprus this was all starting off. Sharon had made his visit. One of the things we looked at was Palestine and Bethlehem television. The outrage of the Palestinian people is understandable, but I found the broadcast absolutely blood curdling. It seemed to be specifically and deliberately edited so as not to create conditions of peace or to pull people back. It is almost as if a deliberate tactical decision had been taken to use this provocation – and I agree it is provocation – in order to politically advance the situation. That is very dangerous.

People ask if Arafat cannot control his people and Barak cannot control the police. At a certain stage, when the situation becomes particularly inflamed, they cannot. Nobody could, in my opinion. I listened to people being interviewed in Ramallah and so on and they were asked that question but they said no. They said that this is the second intifada, that it was their struggle. Once it is let out, it is very difficult to put back in. The only way is to slowly create a feeling of investment in the country by the people who feel most disadvantaged.

As I said, there were direct parallels to this country. There was the shooting of a large number of people. We had that on Bloody Sunday. On the other side, there was the appalling murder of the two soldiers. We had that with the two British Army people who wandered into Milltown cemetery. Two savage events happened here exactly as they happened in Israel and Palestine but the difference is the disproportionate response on both sides. We have to advise our friends on both sides to try to pull back, just like in the North of Ireland. There is a conflict of culture.

I know a family who live near Bethlehem, a most delightful family. They are friends of ours. They are farmers and it is a joy to see the farm that these Palestinian people occupy because of the care of the land, the meticulous well being of the animals, the family structure and all of that. They have been there for many generations but because of the way in which land tenure was held by the Palestinians, they do not perhaps have all the legal documentation that the Israeli state requires. On the other hand, there is the Israeli modern, aggressive, pushy, feeling for a new state and infrastructure and in the middle of this land, some of the good agricultural land will be taken over by a road junction. In my experience that is an image of the real basis of a lot of the conflict and I do not see how it will be resolved if the people do not meet not just at the top but also as ordinary people. That is essential and it needs movement on both sides.

I listened to a woman settler being interviewed from one of the new settlements and I thought what was said from both sides was very sad. She said that when the settlement was being built, she had some contact with the Palestinians buying fruit and vegetables. After that there was no contact. She was asked if she ever had a Palestinian in her home and she said, "I don't think so. What for? We do not speak the language". It is extraordinary that people who are living so intimately together have so little understanding of each other and my hope is that there will be greater understanding between these two peoples. This will not be helped on the one hand by the release of the Hamas bombers, which was a highly dangerous thing to do, or on the other by the clear and continuing provocation by the settlers. The most difficult and thorny point for the Israelis is the settlers and again we have a parallel here. The most dangerous complicating factor in the Irish situation is represented by the people in New York and Boston whose grandparents left this country in tragic circumstances during the Famine and who, through the last two generations, have cherished and fostered a dream which has festered into a nightmare so that we now have people like Martin Galvin fundraising for the Real IRA.

With regard to the settlers, that will be an exceedingly difficult problem for the Israeli Administration to handle but at least it was addressed in the recent negotiations. Some of the settlements will have to be dismantled. It is difficult for me to say that from this side but it is something that the realists on the Israeli side will accept.

Jerusalem is the other major problem. It will have to be shared, and it looked to me as if Mr. Barak was moving dangerously close to that position. Again I applaud his extraordinary courage. He presented an opportunity and it is a source of immense regret that this was thrown away. I wish there had been more courage on the other side as Abba Eban, who was a very moderate and wise Foreign Minister of Israel, said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. There was an opportunity which required enormous courage on both parts and I hope there will not be a further failure of courage on either side. That is why I say, although I am a friend of Israel, that there should be balance in the situation.

One can understand some of the difficulties of the Palestinians with regard to the settlements. If one looks at the map of Israel and the way in which settlements are dispersed throughout the land, it increases our understanding of the complexity of the situation. I will give one further example. I seem to be giving many examples of what I hope is a moderate view. A number of casualties have been created because the Arab farmers are going out to pick the olive crop. This is not just a tourist thing for the Arabs; it is part of their livelihood and they are easily attacked by the settlers. I believe the settlers must be confronted. I heard on the radio about a situation which arose recently in Nablus where a spokesman for the settlers outlined an attack on a group near Nablus in which, regrettably, a rabbi was shot dead. It was dangerous and irresponsible of those settlers to go there. We must look at the situation where the clear view of the Israeli army is overridden apparently further down the command chain.

I do not have a final solution; I do not think anybody in this House has one. I am very glad that at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs the other day, the Israeli Ambassador, Mr. Sofer, and Dr. Allan, were still able to exchange views in a civilised way. I commend both of them and I want to record that as difficult as it has been, Mr. Sofer has consistently pushed the notion of peace. He was an adviser to Peres and Rabin. We know the difficulties. Rabin went for peace. He got shot as his reward. Sadat took the initiative in going to Jerusalem and he got shot. There are immense dangers. It is vital for us in Europe to support the doves on both sides, to support the people who will go for peace. It will be a long-term strategy because the people in that part of the world will have to learn about each other. They have to discover how to live together and it will not be easy. They were close to a solution. I hope that opportunity occurs again but on both sides, malign forces have been released.

A policy of separation and of closure of the territory will not work. That will not be satisfactory. That is simply creating a type of apartheid that will explode. They must learn to live together. I wish the courageous people on both sides well.

Leaving here a few weeks ago there was a demonstration outside – which is understandable because I remember what it was like here after Bloody Sunday when they burned down the British Embassy – and I understand the feelings of those people but some of the slogans worried me. One of them said, "Jerusalem is Islamic". It is not. If it was, the situation would not be so complicated. It is much more complex than that.

I was agonised by the 12 year old boy who was shown cowering behind his father. I understand the father gave an interview from the hospital during which he was distraught. Imagine a parent seeing the death of a 12 year old child. It beggars description. At the end of the interview, however, in the tradition of somebody like Gordon Wilson who called for peace, that father appealed to both sides to turn against violence. That was carried in the international media, but it was cropped on Palestine TV. That was a pity, as it was an opportunity lost. Instead of sending out unremitting messages, understandable emotionally, people on both sides should think and encourage every possible effort towards peace.

Mr. Mooney

I was going to give the Senator the time allocated to me for his contribution.

Mr. Norris

I would be happy to take up the Senator on his kind offer. Yes, where was I?

Mr. Mooney

The Senator and I are very good friends and I will use that analogy to illustrate terminology in this context. When the Senator referred to a final solution, I could not help but reflect – this was evident on the occasions I visited the Middle East – that the sad reality is that on the Israeli side, whatever about our Palestinian colleagues, there is a deep mistrust of European involvement, although I fully support the Senator's view on Europeans having an input. The Israelis see themselves very much orientated towards the United States.

I have tried to wrestle with my conscience on this issue regarding the Americans' role in the Middle East. Their portrayal as honest brokers sometimes reminds me of the early stages of the Northern Ireland conflict when the British were always very happy to refer to themselves as honest brokers while we on the Nationalist side would have had a view about the British Army being honest brokers in what was an extremely volatile environment.

I am glad there is a recognition that there is a role for the European Community in all of this, but the key is not so much the Palestinians acknowledging and encouraging that, but the Israelis doing so, although one cannot blame them for not doing that. They have a very deep distrust of Europeans, especially of Germans for obvious historical reasons. They see America as their main guarantor of survival in the Middle East. If I were an Israeli – 60% of Israelis support the peace process, notwithstanding all that has been happening – living in Israel surrounded by a group of Arab countries, and I do not include the fledging Palestinian state, which know or care as much about democracy and democratic ideals as our dog at home, I would feel somewhat threatened as well. That is not acknowledged sometimes, perhaps because vital interests are at stake. The Americans are certainly not going to upset the Saudi Arabians who have one of the world's largest reservoirs of oil. I have often thought how different the situation would be if there was oil in Palestine but, unfortunately, there is not.

The two sides are attempting to come to some sort of resolution. Like Senator Norris, I do not have an opinion to offer on a solution, but I wish to make a point I raised earlier on the Order of Business, as I feel very strongly about it. We have witnessed continuing violence in the Middle East during recent weeks and the horror of the murders, most of which have been perpetrated by the Israeli defence forces – all one need do is check the statistics. I acknowledge the gruesome murder of the two reserve soldiers by a Palestinian mob. That cannot be justified under any circumstances. I am sure that young man who appeared at the window with his two hands covered in blood does not care one whit what we in far off Ireland think. I am sure he sees himself as being "one of the chosen people", if I could use that term about the Palestinians, and that if he were to be shot or killed he would see himself as a martyr. That is a sad reflection on the culture of that part of the world, that there is such a glorying of killing, notwithstanding the fact that most of the murders have been committed against the Palestinian people.

Throughout all of this, according to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which published a statement in the international media last week, more than 200 incidents of anti-Semitism have taken place in Western Europe since the start of this latest cycle of violence in the Middle East, the most recent of which occurred in London when a young man was attacked because of his religious background. We in Ireland have the high moral ground when it comes to condemning unequivocally and unambiguously anti-Semitic attacks on innocent people, not only because of the vileness of anti-Semitism but because we as a country do not have a history of racism or of deliberately targeting people because of their religion or point of view, notwithstanding the difficulties we face with illegal immigrants, refugees etc.

I would like to think we are a civilised race and that most of western Europe is made up of civilised nations, but it is especially important because of the historical pall that hangs over anti-Semitism that we in the west take every opportunity to condemn outright these attacks. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre said it was somewhat ironic that in the midst of the welter of anti-Israeli motions passed at the United Nations not one country suggested there should be a motion condemning anti-Semitic attacks. There must be some balance.

I am a student of the Second World War. I am as familiar as most people would be with the horrors of the Holocaust. I have visited the concentration camps. I can understand in a real sense the thinking and psyche of many Israelis in their attitude towards Europe. What sort of message is it sending if, on the one hand, the European Union and those participating in debates of this nature call for a more inclusive dialogue with European countries if, on the other hand, Europe remains silent when Israelis see some of their co-religionists – 200 incidents in all – being attacked and do not utter one word of protest? When everybody remained silent in the 1930s six million Jews were killed. I will not labour the point, but I feel strongly about it.

We in Ireland, who have a very proud record of defending human rights and have stood with the Palestinian people when it was unpopular to do so, have a right and an obligation to take the initiative in this regard. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs will reflect on these comments and consult his European colleagues. I hope the outcome of such consultations might be some form of public condemnation of the attacks being perpetrated on European citizens because of their religion.

In the narrow context of the Middle East, I endorse fully what Senator Norris has said about Jerusalem. That is one of the key problems in this debate. Jerusalem does not belong to the Muslim or the Arab people, no more than it belongs to the Jews. It belongs to all of us. From when I was a small child, even when I had no appreciation of the latent problems of the Middle East, I had read and absorbed that Jerusalem was an open city for all religions, was owned by all of us and treated with equal reverence by us. If there could be a change in the mindset in that regard, that might help. That is not to detract from the political reality that Palestinians see Jerusalem as the capital of a fledging state. The world held its breath for a brief moment some months ago when it seemed as if Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian President Arafat had agreed on some sort of modus vivendi for a way forward on Jerusalem. For a brief moment it seemed possible that both tribes could accept Jerusalem as a united and divided city in a complex political arrangement. The fact that they came so close to it means they can revisit it.

While the Palestinian people yearn for statehood and all the benefits it would bring, I hope there will be general recognition that the political situation in Israel is now extremely volatile. We are used to trapeze acts by politicians. Currently David Trimble is engaged in another trapeze act in Northern Ireland in an effort to deal with those who are against him in the Unionist Council. I hope he succeeds. Ehud Barak faces an opposition majority. When he goes before the Knesset early next week he will be able to count on only 30 votes in the 120 seat chamber. That is not a ringing endorsement of a Prime Minister who is unquestionably seeking a peaceful resolution of this problem. That is a real concern and I hope the Palestinian leadership will acknowledge the political difficulties facing Barak.

There is a second worrying element, if one is to accept the news reports from the Middle East. The Israeli defence forces, while not exactly out of control, are not under the same command culture that was traditionally the case. In recent years the route to success in Israeli society is not, as heretofore, membership of the armed forces but through other means. Although Barak was a member of the special forces and was involved in a number of well publicised episodes during that time, the understanding is that those who are now in control of the Israeli army are not so much outside political control but are flouting it. If that is the case and if there is evidence to that effect, it would explain why such extreme measures were taken by the Israeli defence forces against stone throwing Palestinians.

It is alleged, for example, that they have been utilising silent sniper fire against Palestinians in Ramallah and are using a type of bullet which is not only smokeless, allowing the sniper to remain hidden, but which mushrooms on entering the body, turns and, like the dumdum bullet, tears out the internal organs to such an extent that a Palestinian doctor was quoted last week as saying it was the first time he had encountered the damage done by this weaponry in all his years of dealing with volatile militaristic episodes. If that is the case, there are questions to be answered by the Israeli military leadership. Why is it using a hammer to crack a nut? Why is it doing what we have seen repeatedly during military engagements in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, using excessive force? The army of any country, particularly a democracy – Israel is a democracy – is responsible to its political masters.

I was disappointed at the wording of the statement that emerged from President Clinton at Sharm-el-Sheikh. On closer examination, it appeared to be the language of somebody who was on the one hand attempting to portray himself as an honest broker but on the other was attempting to ensure that the Israeli vote on 5 November in America would be secure for Vice-President Al Gore. It was distasteful to see the manner in which senior politicians in various Senate election campaigns in the United States – I am thinking of one well known campaign in which we have a particular interest – were falling over themselves in front of American-Israeli audiences to show their credentials as true friends of Israel. That does not suggest honest brokerage. It suggests what we have seen many examples of in America and other countries, political expediency taking over from basic decency and humanity.

I am sure the Palestinian people are aware of the obstacles they face trying to get their message heard above the clamour from the American-Israeli lobby. However, that is the political reality they have had to live with, as we in Europe have had to live with it. It is the main reason the Israeli political leadership has traditionally not been interested in or concerned by what Europe thinks. However, in view of recent statements by Israeli politicians, particularly following Sharm-el-Sheikh, I hope there might be a role for Europe and I like to think we could contribute something to the resolution of the problem. It would not, therefore, simply be seen by the Palestinians and the wider Arab community as a case of America attempting to shore up its vital interests in the Middle East. The Europeans, with no agenda other than an honest desire for a resol ution of this problem, could act as honest brokers. If Europeans achieved nothing more than getting their foot in the door in the wider debate taking place between Israel and Palestine and the Arab world, that would be a major achievement.

I urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs, given the position we hold with the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, with the Israelis, to act. Ireland is seen as a non-aligned country with no baggage. We could act in concert with our European partners to formulate some way of getting involved in the negotiations that might lead to what everybody wants, peace and prosperity for all the people in the region, security for Israel and nationhood for Palestine.

Mr. Lanigan

I thank the Minister of State for taking this debate at short notice.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Dr. Moffatt)

Deputy Cowen regrets that he cannot be present for this debate. I thank the Senators who have contributed for their informed comments.

The Government is gravely concerned at the crisis in the Middle East. It has already taken an appalling toll of life and put in jeopardy the Middle East peace process in which so many hopes have been placed. It poses a threat to the stability of the region. The Minister has extended his deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have been killed and injured.

What has happened in the Palestinian territories and Israel is tragic. Just at the moment when the parties were closer to an agreement than they have ever been, the essential basis for peace – trust and confidence – has been seriously undermined. Instead, anger and frustration stemming from the failure of each side to understand the problems of the other has boiled over, resulting in the horrors we have witnessed.

Intensive diplomatic efforts have been made to bring the crisis to an end. I pay tribute in particular to the efforts of President Clinton and President Mubarak, together with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and other leaders who have, in recent days, tried to save the peace process. We know from our own experience of building peace in Northern Ireland that there is no other way forward.

The immediate cause of the crisis was the ill advised and provocative visit by Mr. Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, or Haram-al-Sharif, in the old city of Jerusalem. This site, holy to both Moslems and Jews, is at the heart of the dispute over the future status of Jerusalem, which is one of the most difficult and sensitive issues remaining to be resolved in the peace process.

Mr. Sharon's visit gave rise to the outraged reaction by Palestinian demonstrators, which in turn led to the excessive reaction by the Israeli military. Further widespread protests and incidents followed, resulting in countless injuries and over 100 deaths, including many children, and the brutal murder of two Israeli soldiers in a police station in Ramallah.

The Government has made clear its position. We deplore all acts of violence. We have called on both sides to exercise the utmost restraint and to do all in their power to avoid further escalation. We have underlined the need for both sides to act quickly to reach agreement in the Middle East peace process and to avert the danger that this conflict might extend further. The objective must remain the achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, which must necessarily recognise both Israel's right to live in peace and security and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

In our own bilateral contacts within the past two weeks, we have strongly put forward our views. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, recently met with the Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Co-operation in Dublin, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, met with the Israeli Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, also in Dublin. Yesterday, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, met in Leinster House with Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, a special emissary of Prime Minister Barak, and encouraged him to join with the Palestinians in rebuilding trust and confidence, mutual respect, parity of esteem and a spirit of partnership. The Minister described our experience in these islands in developing a win-win approach. Stressing the need for maximum restraint, he assured him of our support for all the efforts to restore calm and to find a peaceful solution. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, also reminded him of the very concrete contribution we have made to peace in the region through our participation in UN peacekeeping in Lebanon, where the safety of our troops is of paramount concern.

We have also fully supported the European Union in its ongoing efforts to defuse the crisis. The informal European Council meeting in Biarritz last weekend called for an immediate end to all violence and urged all parties to demonstrate political courage and responsibility, so that reason and tolerance might prevail over fear, hatred and extremism before the point of no return was reached. The European Union has been active in encouraging the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to come together and work for a ceasefire. President Arafat, President Chirac, Prime Minister Barak and US Secretary of State Albright met in Paris in an effort to find a solution. The Union's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, participated in the summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt earlier this week.

The meeting at Sharm-el-Sheikh produced a number of agreements on measures to halt the violence. The major points agreed were that, first, both sides are to issue statements unequivocally calling for an end to violence and to take immediate concrete measures to eliminate points of fric tion. These include withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions they had occupied before the outbreak of disturbances, an end to the closure of Palestinian territories and the reopening of Gaza airport, as well as renewal of security co-operation between the two sides. Second, the United States, together with the Israelis and the Palestinians and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, will establish a fact finding committee to look into the events of the past weeks. Third, the United States will consult with the parties in the next two weeks on how to resume the peace negotiations leading to a permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We appeal to the parties, who have demonstrated their sense of responsibility at this critical moment, to implement these decisions without delay. The two essential aims will be to end the violence and to restore at least a working measure of confidence. This will require openness and transparency on all sides in implementing the measures. Some of these measures are already being put in place. Reports overnight suggest that the first signs of easing of tension are appearing. However, fears of renewed violence persist, and developments over the next few days will be of crucial importance.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has begun debating the crisis. On Saturday, Arab leaders will be meeting in Cairo for their first summit in four years. Their discussions will focus on the crisis and the ways in which a consensus approach can be developed. Later this month, the Israeli Parliament will resume and it, too, will be focusing its attention on the grave situation now facing the Israeli Government and people.

The first priority, as agreed at Sharm-el-Sheikh, must be to end the violence. This, however, will not be enough – the immediate causes and effects must be addressed. The underlying frustrations and anger have to be removed. If a cessation of violence is to take hold and remain in place, it will be essential to move quickly to rebuild trust and confidence. This will not be an easy task but it is a vital one. In this context, it is important that the investigation of what has happened will be as open, thorough and transparent as possible. We, with our EU partners, have supported a full international investigation. If this investigation is to help restore trust and confidence, it can only do so if it itself enjoys the trust and confidence of all concerned.

I see a resumption of the peace negotiations as offering the only path out of the recurring cycle of bloodshed and suffering. Although the Camp David talks in July made considerable progress, it did not prove possible to overcome some major difficulties. Chief among these were the question of Palestinian refugees and, most intractable of all, the question of sovereignty in Jerusalem. This is the central issue. If it can be solved. everything else is likely to fall into place.

At the core of this issue is sovereignty over the Jewish and Muslim holy places. Most difficult of all is the problem of the Islamic Haram-al-Sharif and the Jewish Temple Mount, which share the same site. For both sides, this is more a religious and symbolic matter than a territorial one, and both are said to have adopted mutually exclusive positions. What seems clear is that no comprehensive solution is possible unless each side accords the other sovereignty over its own holy places, or accepts a form of international sovereignty.

Ireland has long been sympathetic to the unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which includes the option of a state, and is not subject to any veto. We would prefer to see this achieved through a negotiated solution. We believe, together with our partners in the European Union, that the establishment of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian state would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and acceptance as an equal partner in the region, an objective which we equally and fully support.

Our contribution to this process was reflected earlier this year in the decision of the Government to establish a representative office in Ramallah and to increase our development co-operation activities in the Palestinian territories. Last week the Government allocated $100,000 to the Palestinians as a humanitarian response to the shortage of medical supplies in the West Bank.

In parallel, we have sought to encourage the development of relations with Israel, both bilateral and in the framework of the EU, in a way that will also strengthen the basis for lasting peace and stability in the region.

In ten weeks time, Ireland will be taking on the responsibilities of membership of the Security Council, and we are preparing ourselves for this task. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, expects that developments in the Middle East will continue to be one of the issues of major concern, and he will be anxious to ensure that, through our diplomatic network and his own contacts, we are in a position to make a constructive and effective contribution. He is currently looking at the possibilities for making an early visit to the Middle East.

I spoke, at the beginning of my remarks, of the tragic nature of the crisis. It is particularly poignant that, in this millennial year, which should be a time of celebration and bringing peoples together, the holy places should have been the scenes of violence and death. That is regrettable when they should be places of peace and enjoyment. Thousands of pilgrims from this and many other countries have been visiting these holy places. Many of these visitors and pilgrims have been affected by the disturbances. However, I am glad to report that all Irish citizens in the region are safe. We have provided information and guidance to those planning to travel, as well as providing consular assistance, where necessary, to those already there.

It is a source of particular sadness to the Minister, Deputy Cowen, which I am sure will be shared by all in this House, that the land and place which are sacred to many millions who adhere to these major world religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism – should have witnessed such hatred and violence. The Minister wishes to assure the House that he will continue to work together with our partners and friends in Europe, Israel and the Arab world to encourage a return to the path of peace which leads away from conflict towards genuine peace, security and justice for all the peoples of the Middle East.

The Minister will also make every effort to ensure that this House and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs are kept fully informed and notified of the Government's activities to this end.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Farrell

At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 November.