Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I again thank the Leader of the House for allowing me the opportunity to not only outline the response of the Government to date but also to listen to what has been a most constructive debate with varying views on the part of Members from all sides of the House, all of which have a common bond, which is that all the views were expressed in an honest and sincere way. I particularly welcome the comments of the leader of the Labour Party group in the House and the Labour Party Whip and their balanced and comprehensive contribution to the debate.

I was surprised that Sinn Féin did not avail of the opportunity to rebut or dissociate themselves from some of the commentary made earlier by the Leader of the House. I am very happy to be here. I take on board the points that Senators have made about the time for contributions being somewhat restricted. I would be happy to come back at another date at the convenience of the House and its Members and indeed at short notice. I was very happy to confirm my availability irrespective of prior commitments when contacted very early in the week by the Leader of the House because I do not believe there is a commitment more important or one to which I could give more priority than to listen to the views of my fellow parliamentarians in the Seanad this afternoon.

In respect of Gaza, I share the deep anguish felt by the Irish people at what we have been witnessing and indeed the frustration from this afternoon's engagement that, to be blunt, we and other international voices have so far been unable to exercise the type of influence that perhaps we might like or that might be expected from some sources to impress upon either side or both sides to choose a different path. Earlier in the debate I set out the Government's position in the conflict, which I can summarise as this: Israel is entitled to defend itself, its people and its territory, but it is not entitled to do what it is doing.

With the permission of the House, I will confine myself to a number of questions that were raised in the course of the debate. I apologise in advance if I do not deal in sufficient detail with every question put to me because I understand a certain timeframe was put on the debate, but I welcome the opportunity.

I beg the indulgence of colleagues to allow me deal with most of the questions put to me in the course of the debate.

Most of this afternoon's questions centre on Ireland's abstention at the UN Human Rights Council. I refer specifically to the remarks made by Senators David Norris, Martin Conway and Paschal Mooney. I believe there has been some misapprehension over Ireland's vote on the resolution. Ireland did not oppose the resolution. We made a very clear statement at the Council session condemning civilian deaths, stating we believed international law had been breached and supporting an investigation into all such breaches - those by Israel and Hamas, and also those terrorist activities by other splinter groups that were mentioned by only one Senator this afternoon, Senator Hildegarde Naughton. It is important that any such investigation would deal with all terror groups.

With our EU partners, we as the Irish representatives had a number of specific difficulties with the precise wording of the resolution we were being asked to agree with. This is not something we can ignore and it is not something we can wipe away with the stroke of a pen. These related to both the need to ensure that all breaches of international law on either side would be investigated and also our view that the wrong mechanism was being proposed to investigate in any event. For reasons of efficiency and speed we would have preferred to use the existing structures, such as the office of the much-respected High Commissioner for Human Rights. We put this forward in the course of a robust debate. Indeed we had expressed these concerns previously to the Palestinian authors of the resolution and they were fully aware of them when they drafted their text, when they would not engage in the type of deliberation that is not only commonplace but is essential in order to reach consensus.

Throughout the day, Ireland and the rest of the EU group worked hard in negotiations to try to improve the resolution of these specific points. Up until a very late point in the afternoon we hoped that these negotiations would result in a text that we could support, but, unfortunately, this did not happen. At a very late stage in the afternoon the Palestinian delegation received new instructions which terminated, with sudden effect, the ongoing negotiations. This left Ireland with very little choice. As the problems with the text were not resolved, the EU group took a common decision to abstain.

I listened carefully to what Senators said. It is important to be aware that abstention on a resolution in an international forum is not the same as a "No" vote, nor is it simply sitting on the fence. The record shows that in most cases, countries that abstain are signalling that they are not trying to block the resolution but that they have specific and important difficulties preventing them from supporting it. This was stated directly at the session and was fully understood by all other countries present.