Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I sympathise, as I did earlier with the Palestinian ambassador, with the Israeli ambassador on the loss of civilian life in Israel caused by some of the rockets fired into it. That was wrong.

The ambassador stated in his submission: "...the Palestinian civilians are not our enemies and we did not want them dead or hurt ... each time a civilian was killed unintentionally was seen as a failure." Size wise, Gaza is approximately 10 km wide and its length is similar to that of the coast of Wexford, a county with which the ambassador is familiar. There are 1.8 million people living in Gaza. I cannot see how Israel could indiscriminately bomb that area without killing many civilians. The number of children killed during the recent conflict was in excess of 500, representing one third of all civilian casualties. Does the ambassador agree that this indiscriminate bombing can only serve to radicalise young Palestinians who for the third time in the space of six years have seen such conflict occur? What does he say to the fathers and grandparents who lost their children and grandchildren or to children who lost their parents? Is he prepared to condemn it as a war crime? Is Israel prepared to refer the issue to the International Criminal Court for independent investigation? I see the ambassador’s colleague, Ms Nurit Tinari-Modai, deputy ambassador, smiling, which means, presumably, she does not see it as a war crime. However, many of us do. Why can a reputable international court not arbitrate on whether my contention is correct?

On Israel’s policy on the political separation of Gaza, the reaction to the election of the government of Hamas and the blockade, does the ambassador accept that the blockade has caused untold humanitarian difficulties for the people living in Gaza?

Is it part of Israeli policy to continue this or is Israel prepared to engage constructively in ending the blockade of Gaza?
In November 2005 Israel signed an agreement on movement and access, with which I am sure the ambassador is familiar. It would, inter alia,have permitted the continued operation of the crossings into Gaza. There were commitments to build a sea port in Gaza to allow access and to the reopening of the airport in Gaza, all of which would have helped in the provision of humanitarian aid and food.
I noticed that the ambassador mentioned that Israel was ready for compromise. Can he indicate anything that would illustrate to any of us that Israel intends to compromise in any way on its apparent intention, based on what has happened in the past 40 or 50 years, to maintain the status quoand not give an inch - a phrase with which we in this country are very familiar?
The ambassador mentioned Area C and made great play of the fact that it was under the control of the Israelis. Will he comment on why Israel has not implemented the Oslo accord and reneged on it? Areas A, B and C on the West Bank were to have been merged by this stage under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
I know that the ambassador will contest some of the questions I have put to him. Why does Israel continue to construct settlements in the occupied territories? Does the ambassador accept that, under international law, the construction of these settlements is illegal?
My final question is-----