Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. Right across the committee there is an acceptance of the fundamental findings of the report that there is systematic oppression of the Palestinian people, that there are illegal settlements - in fact, they have been increasing - and that there is an entire system of control and oppression right through the occupied territories. I do not think there is any question about that. It is accepted. The report is very thorough and detailed in that regard and Mr. O'Gorman got that point across succinctly in his presentation.

Party politics is not an issue within this committee or others like it. Rather, it is about the matter confronting the committee. However, I feel it is incumbent on me to state that one of the points made by my very good friend, Deputy Brady, is not objectively the case. I invite him to comment further if he so wishes. In fact, another friend of mine who is in the Gallery and has listened to many debates in the Seanad has accepted the bona fides of the Minister. I think the current Minister for Foreign Affairs is very concerned with this issue. He has visited Palestine on several occasions and is occupied by and sincerely engaged with the issue. He recognises the wrongs in this situation and has put that on record repeatedly, including in debates in the Seanad initiated by my friend in the Gallery. That is objectively the case. If I understand his contributions to date correctly, there is not one finding he would challenge in terms of the detail of the report but his contention is that he has to maintain the moral authority and capacity to advance the two-state solution and the peace process which, tragically, is not very live at the moment. I would be interested in the views of our guests on this. That potential must be there. He must have the moral authority and be able to speak to both sides while being unequivocal on this issue. He has repeatedly been unequivocal on it. I am not aware of any Member of these Houses who for one moment would suggest there is not systematic oppression here.

I am aware of Council of Europe reports on minors being victims of police harassment or being jailed and raids taking place at night. The litany goes on. I sat through a plenary session of the Council of Europe at which we dealt with a report specifically about the oppression and criminalisation of minors. They are being taken from their homes and, in some instances, tortured. They and their families are being terrorised. That is all on record and nobody is suggesting the contrary. I would like our guests to respond on the basic contention that the moral authority of a neutral country such as Ireland might be challenged or compromised if we do not maintain the capacity to speak to both sides, particularly in the context of the UN.

Amnesty's response to that will be interesting. That is the fundamental question I would ask. I am not here to challenge any of Amnesty's findings. Indeed, I am not aware of any person who would wish to do so and nor could he or she factually do so. What we do with the findings? How do we progress them and get the correct outcome?

For the sake of balance and objectivity, which I am sure Deputy Brady would welcome, we must explore both sides of this argument. How do we proceed here? Do we go for the nuclear option? In that case, the Minister's capacity to progress things would be damaged. That is the fundamental question and I am interested to hear the answer from the witnesses. Sadly, the facts are the facts and, tragically, it is all true. It is only a question of how we deal with it, how we approach it and where we go from here.

Things look very bleak at the moment but does Amnesty see any prospect of a fledgling peace process or any initiatives in that regard?