Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Carthy raised a number of points. In the past we have been very clear in calling out and condemning violations of international law by Israel in respect of the occupied territories. I do not necessarily accept that the narrative in the past has been as he described it. We have been very consistent in saying that UN resolutions should be adhered to in respect of settlements. On my recent visit to the Middle East I referred to the fact there were unacceptable levels of settler expansion and displacement of Palestinians on the West Bank. The issue here is more complex, if we are honest about it. I spoke to the Israeli Government on that occasion. I will not say which interlocutor because when in engagement and discussions with people we have to respect some degree of confidentiality. It is fair to say that the prism through which politics is looked at in Israel is "Security, security, terror, terror". The fear of attack dominates the political narrative. It has been a large factor in the electoral outcome of successive elections. How many people would have said Israel is overdoing its fear and that its focus on security is overdone or misplaced? My view has always been, and I have said it here again today, that the forces of moderation must always be encouraged and nurtured. I have been critical of Israeli Government policy over the years for not facilitating the emergence in Palestine of a strong Palestinian Authority. International partners should have done likewise. There are challenges on all fronts.

There is no equivocation here. The deepest fears of Israeli people came to a realisation last Saturday week. We must not underestimate the impact of this on the Israeli psyche and the Israeli people. There were 1,400 civilians murdered in cold blood in the most horrific of circumstances. Hundreds and hundreds of Hamas operatives came over the border and shot anyone in sight, including children and elderly people, and took hostages. We have to be very clear in consistently articulating this reality.

Senator Joe O'Reilly made the point that two wrongs do not make a right. Under international law, people have a right to self defence. Within that legal framework, Israel can legitimately say it wants to deal with Hamas, which has declared war on Israel. That is what the Israeli position is. The problem is that Hamas is deeply embedded in civilian life and society in Gaza. Historical experience shows that it will utilise this degree of being embedded to protect itself and disappear. I have long and consistently said the bombing of any urban conurbation results in the loss of civilian life. I want no loss of civilian life and international law places an obligation on all actors to protect civilian life.

We support a humanitarian pause in hostilities to allow in humanitarian aid. I do not want to get too semantic about this, and I know that Deputy Carthy knows this is our position. I discussed it earlier with his party leader in the context of motion before the Dáil. Many people called on Ukraine to declare a ceasefire but that would have meant for Ukraine to accept the new incursions by Russia as a reality. In other words, it would forfeit all of the land that Russia has taken. I accept that the situation is somewhat different in Gaza. Nonetheless, there is a fundamental point as to whether we believe that Israel has a right to go after Hamas. We need to ask ourselves that question.

I am teasing through these issues. We are getting into discussing military operations and perhaps there are people here who are wiser on that front than those of us who are not in the military world. I can understand why, from a military point of view, people would want to neutralise the military threat that Hamas poses to a civilian population, which it does having perpetrated the attack. That said, we have called out that the decision to tell 1 million people that they should move was wrong. It was dangerous and not implementable. It cannot be done. There has to be proportionality in the context of how Hamas is pursued. The protection of the civilian population has to be a top priority. We must also distinguish between the people of Gaza and Hamas. Not all of the people of Gaza are members of Hamas or engage in violence. Many have families like our own who want to try to get on with life.

We have worked with all to ask what is the immediate priority. Given all that has happened, realistically what can we try to influence? It seems that what we can try to influence the most in the shortest possible term is a pause to allow humanitarian aid to get into Gaza. Parallel with this we also want to get our citizens out of Gaza through the Rafah crossing. We have been engaging with the Egyptian authorities, the Israeli authorities and the United Nations in respect of trying to facilitate an exit pathway through Rafah for Irish citizens and some of their dependents. Two days ago, we were hoping that there would be a window of opportunity for the crossing to be opened.

I have spoken to UNRWA because Ireland is one of its strongest and most consistent supporters. UNRWA is the UN agency that has been longest involved in the Middle East. It has been keeping education and health services going and food available for Palestinians. As a country we have been asked to help UNRWA to get on diplomatically and to try to help reframe its financial sustainability. We are doing this. We believe nations throughout the world must now give urgent additional funding to UNRWA. It is a very practical step that should be taken. We will be doing this in addition to the core funding we have given UNRWA. Yesterday Philippe Lazzarini told me he could give me three words to explain what the people of Gaza need. He said, "Water, water, water". We are very focused on working with our international partners to get the humanitarian corridors open. We do not want Israel intervening in this regard. It has concerns about Rafah because it feels other things will happen there vis-à-visHamas. Likewise, Hamas cannot use the civilian population for its agenda or its objectives.

In the European context, when I spoke at the Foreign Affairs Council last week there was a very strong majority. The meeting was held in Oman, and we participated by video link. We said strongly that there can be no suspension of development or humanitarian aid. It was interesting that the vast majority of member states along with us stress the importance of international humanitarian law and that any focus on Hamas had to have proportionality and be in accordance with international law.

A joint statement was issued on Sunday by the European Union. Charles Michel spoke to all of the leaders of member states and their officials and we worked on Sunday morning to get that statement out. The Deputy may have seen that.

There are different strands of opinion within the European Union. Historically, Germany because of the Holocaust sees an obligation to protect Israel. I read recently Chancellor Scholz articulate it in such a way. That has been consistent over the decades. Other countries, like Austria, have a similar perspective. We can rail against it. It is easy to condemn it. I would rather, with 27 member states around the table, consider how to engage with people who look at things from a different perspective. How can we arrive at a decent position that allows the right things to be done? If in international forums we end up calling each other out across the table, we will not make much progress. The European Union is the biggest donor to Palestine.

What happened last week, in terms of Commissioner Várhelyi in particular, was unacceptable, because he took a solo run in respect of announcing a cessation of aid when there had been no consultation and he had no authority to do that. We and others called that out quickly at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting. It is important we get the balance right. President von der Leyen yesterday also spoke of the importance and centrality of international law. Today the Taoiseach is engaging in an online meeting with all 27 EU states to discuss the situation, as we are discussing it now.

On the Defence Forces, with anything I say there are security issues that we do not necessarily want to articulate generally. I have met with the Defence Forces leadership on this. Our troops are, first and foremost, under UN command. There will be UN-level plans and authority in terms of directing UNTSO, UNIFIL and UNDOF. UNTSO involves military and civilian observers; they move about Lebanon. UNIFIL involves the largest numbers we have; I think it is about 375. Their situation is they are safe. They have protocols to adhere to when things develop. They are under command as well, with the UNIFIL leadership. Then we have UNDOF; of the three, so far there seems to be less volatility in that location. Things could change at any time.

I had a lengthy conversation last evening with the Iranian foreign minister. He first of all said they have no influence over any of these regional actors, be it Hamas, Hezbollah or anybody else. Parallel with that, he indicated to me that from his discussions with these regional actors, his sense was there could be significant strengthening and widening of the conflict regionally. That was his assessment. One could read into that a number of things. We are conscious of wanting to avoid a regional escalation of this, particularly in Lebanon and the West Bank. That has been a concern of all involved.

Our sense of the international community, notwithstanding what one might read publicly, is that there is a genuine desire to get some restraint into this and move in a better direction, from a humanitarian corridor perspective and around restraint more generally. Efforts are being made internationally to do that. One will never know what thinking was behind the Hamas attack but the idea, as Senator Joe O’Reilly said, that people did not anticipate the reaction and what was to come afterwards is not credible. It does not justify anything but one has to ask, if they were looking to protect Palestinians, whether they seriously thought that going in to murder 1,500 Israelis in cold blood would do so. That does not justify anything but it needs to be said.

I met Mahmoud Abbas and he was clear to me he believes in a peaceful resolution towards a two-state solution. In fairness to him, the international community and Israel are culpable in not pursuing that two-state solution. I have no hesitation in saying that. He was clear and courageous. It is difficult for them now in the febrile atmosphere of the West Bank and Gaza. When I met them a month ago and three or four days ago in the midst of all this, members of the Palestinian National Authority were very clear in saying a peaceful route to the resolution of these issues is the only route. I take some heart from that. It was challenging for him to have to say that. I hope I have answered most of the questions.

On Ukraine-----