Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I am grateful for the Minister's reply, and I note and welcome the distinction between the Irish position and the position of the European Union. Yesterday's meeting of the general affairs and external relations Ministers must be regarded as not only disappointing but as irresponsible in its failure to reach a conclusion to support international law.

There are restrictions on what supplementary questions I might ask. I might put it like this. The European Union has a clear duty in international law, as have its member countries as third parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to see that there is compliance with international law on the protection of civilians.

If the European Union was being even-handed, as it could be, it could have looked at breaches of international law by both sides, such as the rockets at Sderot associated with the military wing of Hamas and then, most particularly, the material presented by a distinguished Irish citizen, Mr. John Ging, the person to whom I referred in my question, when he supplied in advance the co-ordinates of schools which were hit some 11 days later. UN installations were hit not once but three times. This was first denied but when caught out the story was changed. This was a major breach. I believe the Minister agrees with me on that.

However, the equivocation at EU level is appalling. The Presidency issued a statement that it preferred Israeli courts to international law. It was totally silent on the issue of the duties of an occupying power or of compliance with the Geneva Conventions. In addition, four or five countries have canvassed for no criticism at all.

I appreciate that the Union is divided and I appreciate the Irish position, but it is time to be very open about it. Why did the meeting not end the discussion on deepening the trade agreement if it was sincere?

While I do not have time to go into all of the details, the time has come for the European Union to be an actor of first instance. Reverting to the Quartet would be nonsense. Is recognition of the state of Israel, which is one of the Quartet's three demands, to be de facto or de jure?

Regarding the final part of the Minister's reply, how will there be a reconstruction of Gaza if the administrative authority, the non-political wing of Hamas, is not talked to? How can reconstruction stemming from the large bidding conference on 28 February occur if the opening of the crossings has not been secured? The meeting was a disaster in terms of its moral failure and its cowardice in the defence of children and civilians.

See this speech in context