Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests led by the ambassador and, in particular, I welcome our former colleague, the former Deputy and Minister, Mr. Shatter.

At the outset, all Irish people are watching their television screens in horror these days. Our sympathy goes to everybody who is bereaved. However, to get to the real issue, would our guests, led by the ambassador, accept the contention that there is a particular onus on Israel as the most powerful in the situation to move for peace immediately, as has been requested by President Biden and across the world? In that context, would they accept that the moral responsibility to move for peace is added to by what happened at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the police involvement there, the recent spate of demolitions and the takeover of properties?

I am conscious of the time and the Chairman can interrupt me if I go over, but I wish to briefly go through some figures. In 2020, demolitions increased to 535, with 169 in Area C. The home demolitions and displacements in 2020 brought about the movement of 941 persons - 462 women, 442 children, 267 students and 124 refugees. Under accelerated settlements expansion, the construction of 3,512 settlement units was tendered. Israel appropriated 20 dunams, or 5,000 acres, of the Palestinian occupied lands. I will refer to 2021 before leaving the figures. The 2021 monthly number of structures demolished or seized averaged 117 compared with 71 in previous years, with 305 individuals affected and 172 minors. Of course, there are the outstanding cases that came into focus recently.

My first question is about Israel taking the initiative on peace. I put in that context the fact that there is an outbreak of civil disobedience and trouble, which is so tragic, between Arab and Israeli people in Israel itself. Would all logic not suggest that the best option for Israel is Irish policy? There is no threat to the Israeli state in Irish policy. Irish policy is a two-state solution. Would the witnesses not accept that the best position for Israel is to achieve a Palestinian state and a two-state solution, from an Israeli point of view of pure self-interest?

Would the witnesses accept - this a real concern and our primary focus today is demolitions - that the demolitions, their nature and the way they are being carried out are putting the two-state solution at risk? If there are demolitions and settlements in villages and areas, that would make it impossible to get a unified, coherent two-state solution with a separate Palestinian state. There is a problem there. Would they accept the contention that is made that this is almost a policy? If it is not a policy, would they accept that under international law and moral law the settlements and demolitions should stop?

The obvious situation we require here is peace. We can only do so much. We are active at the UN Security Council. I believe the witnesses would accept that the statements from Ireland have been very balanced all the time, in the sense that all we have asked for, even no later than last evening by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is the implementation and maintenance of international law and the maintenance of UN resolutions and recommendations.

There is also the issue of justice, structures and so forth in the Palestinian territories. Something was mentioned the other day and it is fair to put it to the witnesses. They would probably argue that we should have put more to the other side, and that is their view, but the entire infrastructure being built is prejudicial not only to a two-state solution but even to the proper coexistence of people at present, with distinct roadways and a general distinct segregation system for people.

In summary, this country speaks from a perspective of peace and goodwill. First, do the witnesses think that Israel must move on peace, do the big thing there and almost unilaterally create peace? Second, do they accept that the demolitions and settlements should stop and that they are ultimately a threat to a two-state solution? Third, do they accept that there should not be a set of laws or infrastructure in the occupied territories that are likely to result in the alienation and segregation of people and prejudice a two-state solution? I appreciate the witnesses' presence and their willingness to confront the issues publicly, given the dreadful backdrop we have which is something that traumatises any reasonable person.