Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have read the ambassador's speech but I do not think either his speech or some of his answers today have actually helped Israel's cause. In fact, for many of those listening at home, his answers on the land question in particular will be infuriating. It reminds me of the cowboy films from years ago, with the Red Indian and the white man and the expression, "The white man speaks with forked tongue". A lot of those films were about land and about the white man moving in on people's land. The ambassador's excuses were similar to many of the excuses that were given in those crappy Hollywood films, those old B movies. It is scandalous what the ambassador has said about people not having leases on lands and so forth when we are talking about lands that they have lived on for generations. That is part of the difficulty.

The ambassador has said that if we see the demilitarisation of Gaza the generosity of Israel will be forthcoming, but why have we not seen such generosity in the context of the West Bank and the occupied territories? The militarisation in those areas is coming from Israel. What was the rationale behind the Israeli attack on Gaza's power plant? That is a simple question. We know that at the moment the population of Gaza has very limited access to water. Trócaire has issued a report which says that on a daily basis the population of Gaza is only getting 10% of its water needs. The ambassador has said that the checkpoints are open and he gave figures in that context, but are they at full capacity? What is happening in the context of those seeking to access Gaza? Is Israel allowing international humanitarian aid to get in? Is Israel allowing international visitors and politicians to visit the area?

Does Israel favour an inclusive peace process which includes all groups? Does it not make sense, if Israel is looking to reach an agreement, to get as many people as possible involved in the discussions? I ask because many people around the world believe it is a positive development that Hamas has agreed to take part in a government of national unity. In that context, when negotiations take place and agreement is reached, all sides in the conflict are involved. That in itself is an enabler for a long-term peace process.

Does the ambassador accept that the latest agreement is based on an agreement that was reached in November 2012 and that, rather than moving on, the process is actually moving backwards? All that has been agreed in Cairo was actually agreed at that time.

It was agreed at that time that the blockade would be lifted and that fishing rights would be extended, etc. I understand there was a shooting involving a Gaza fisherman last night. That is the backdrop to this debate.

Many people in Ireland genuinely want to see an inclusive peace process. There is no indication that the current Israeli Government, which is the most reactionary government that country has seen, wants to see such a process there. I do not believe it wants to see it. On a previous occasion, I privately asked the ambassador whether he was aware that the expression "mowing the grass" was used in the Israeli army. I think he said at the time that he was not aware of it. Is he aware of it now? Is what happened in Gaza part of the strategy of "mowing the grass"? We are talking about 2,100 civilians who died and 11,000 who were injured. Tens of thousands of people were displaced from their homes.