Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members of the delegation. We met previously. I compliment them on the work they are doing. It is not without some personal risk and it is valuable work.

I feel a sense of frustration because people have raised the issue of the two state solution. I note from the notes we get from the Government that it is concerned that is now at considerable risk because of the settlements. There is a stage at which the two state solution may no longer be viable. In the West Bank area mentioned earlier there are now more Israelis than Palestinians. The continuation of that would look like a policy deliberately engineered to thwart the two state solution. I do not know what to say in regard to that.

The witnesses have taken a measured and minimalist approach in seeking the ban on foods coming from the settlements and are asking this committee to get our Government to institute that country-wide. I concur with that approach. We should put that proposal to the meeting to see if the committee will agree with it because it is important that the Government would take two steps, one of which I picked up from the Trades Union Congress letter. The first one would be what the delegation is asking for and the second would be that it would conduct due diligence across all Government services to identify where they might inadvertently be aiding and abetting the illegal settlements. The TUC is putting such a proposal to the British Government. The delegation might let us know if there is a response from the British Government to that because it would be welcome. That would give us credibility going into the European Presidency in that we could seek the labelling of such produce as a first step. We should do it step by step. Politicians generally kick to touch, and we need to make difficult decisions in this regard.

I have a number of questions for the delegation. First, have its members had any discussions with retailers here? The letter from the TUC states that in Britain most of the multiples now have very little, if any, offending products on their shelves. Has there been any campaign here, and what has been the response of the multiples here?

Second, to where are the settlement products mainly exported? Ireland would account for an infinitesimal amount of the overall number but as the witnesses said, from the point of view of making a statement and giving leadership, it would be important but to where does the majority of it go? I have asked that question previously and I understand from the witnesses' answer that they believe there is not support for that but the illegal settlements are in place at the direction of the Israeli Government. They would not be there otherwise. Why is it not broadened to include all Israeli goods? I am inclined to agree with the witnesses' argument that we should go with this to determine how effective it is but in the background we should not rule out extending it if the Israeli Government, as it clearly appears, is acting illegally and against international law in this area.

We must be balanced in this regard also. Representatives of the Bahá'í faith were here recently and they spoke specifically about Iran. The committee made a case to the Iranian ambassador about Padre Youcef Nadarkhani who was sentenced to death for apostasy. I understand that apostasy is a capital offence in Palestine. Is that correct? I have been approached by people who take a different view than me on these matters. Arguments are being put to us which, if they are true, weaken the case that we can make and it is important that this is addressed to some extent because all the rights and wrongs do not come down on one individual side. As is the case in most disputes, there is varying degrees of culpability.