Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not. I am just saying that I will have to leave.

I welcome Professor Lynk and thank him for his presentation. I have heard him speak at another forum. He makes a lucid presentation. People watching this meeting online should be cognisant of the fact that, apart from being a respected professor and academic, he is a UN-designated rapporteur. People should understand that this is not something whimsical that he took on as a personal project. He is the official UN rapporteur. That gives extra weight to what he says and should make us conscious of his comments. We should also be cognisant of how what he says tallies with our committee's report, which he kindly alluded to, and the recent Amnesty report. All of that has to be factored in.

I wish to ask Professor Lynk some questions. An issue arose in our report and has arisen again recently. The figures around the illegal settlements are stark. I will cite some from his report, which states that there have been 300 Jewish-only illegal civilian settlements since the occupation began and that 700,000 Israeli Jewish settlers are now living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and apart from 3 million Palestinians. In Gaza, which is a physically small area, there are 2 million Palestinians. The report also quotes a former UK Prime Minister. This backdrop is worth citing. An issue that arose when our committee was working on its report was that the nature of the settlements was almost calculated to make it difficult to achieve our ambition of a two-state solution. Does Professor Lynk believe that to be the case? If a two-state solution is no longer achievable because of the nature of the settlements, what does he suggest can be done? Would he suggest resettlements or other structures? Now that the settlements are dotted throughout the occupied territories, it makes the creation of a two-state solution more difficult.

Professor Lynk used the term "apartheid", as did the Amnesty report, if I recall correctly. He rationalised that on three bases. Can he posit reasons for this not being accepted terminology for governments and internationally?

Why does Professor Lynk think officialdom does not interpret it that way? Does he think it is political pressure in America or whatever? Is it a question that there is a lacuna in the level of convincing of external sources?

I will mention a very concerning issue. We are all very anxious to state that there is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism in anything we present or say. There is not one of us who does not have an extraordinary consciousness of the horror, suffering and barbarism that was experienced by the Jewish people, notably at the time of the Second World War and immediately before but right through the ages at times. We are conscious of that. That guilt and remembrance is a big issue for us all collectively who want something done about what is wrong in the occupied territories. That consciousness and guilt is a residual issue that very good people are affected by. In fact, I would say colleagues of mine and all of us here, who are very good individuals, are affected because they live with the memory, horror and recognition.

Could Professor Lynk suggest anything to overcome that? Does he think that is getting more contextualised now? One thing I always attend if I am available is International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The point I am trying to make is whether we can get ourselves to a point where that is put in context, understood and recognised by every remotely human individual or sensitive person. The parallel with that, however, is that two wrongs do not make a right and we need to deal with the occupied territories.

Professor Lynk cited the former Attorney General of Israel making an article in the Irish newspapers. The obvious greatest catalyst, as we are trying to achieve in Russia at the moment, would be internal pressure, if it could be arrived at, to get change. Obviously, there is a moral duty and an imperative we cannot avoid for us, the UN and all bodies to deal with this as an international community. Does Professor Lynk see anything bubbling up apart from the NGOs he cited, which are important? Are they gaining more traction? Is there any sign of internal opposition within Israel that would be the ultimate catalyst in getting a solution? That is an interesting question.

I would like Professor Lynk to comment on something that occurred to me in recent days. I feel very strongly about this issue and it is important. Anyone who is on this committee is on it because he or she is concerned about issues like this one. This is one is very serious. Wonderful international solidarity has been exercised by the UN and the EU against the barbaric, illegal and wrong activities of Russia in Ukraine now. There may come a degree post conflict and ultimately, please God, we hope we will live in a post-conflict world sooner rather than later, when maybe there will be confidence and solidarity in the world and we will start to move on to other areas of injustice. This is a glaring area. Does Professor Lynk think there is potential there? Is that wishful thinking? There might be potential for confidence in the world and a sort of almost policing role by international bodies, which will be enhanced if we are successful on this occasion. Those are the thoughts of the committee. There is no point nor is it helpful that I start chronicling the issues now. We know them but this is to get Professor Lynk's response to those issues. Again, I welcome him. We cannot discuss this tragic situation often enough at this committee.