Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

On behalf of the Labour Party I am happy to support this motion. I would like to state the consistent position of the Labour Party on the blockade of Gaza. It is illegal. It is not only illegal but the efforts made to frustrate the breaking of the blockade in international waters are themselves illegal actions. What is at stake in our discussion is the status of international law and maritime law. Our own credibility is also at stake. We have made many speeches about the Middle East and the position of Gaza. However, we have reached a turning point this week.

There is a set of conditions laid down in this motion that has been agreed by all parties in this House. If the principle of international inspection is not acceded to, if the MV Rachel Corrie, which has no Hamas members aboard and no guns aboard and the cargo of which has been inspected, is impeded under international law, if Irish citizens are illegally arrested and moved to a port or to a destination to which they had no intention of reaching, then that is illegality piled upon illegality. It will fall to us to take action. That action should ideally be in concert with other member states of the European Union.

I support the Minister and have consistently supported his use of the phrase "collective punishment". I do so very carefully. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides, inter alia, that "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited". That is the position in international law. When we looked at Operation Cast Lead, which lead to so many deaths, there was always a requirement to draw a distinction between military action and the position of civilians. That was not respected. Not only should the principle of distinction have been enforced but the principle of proportional action on what were regarded as military targets should also have been enforced.

There are other considerations far beyond these, such as the destruction of civilian infrastructure. An example of this was the knocking out of an ice-cream factory a few hundred meters from inside the border in Gaza. Basic electricity installations necessary for sewerage were interfered with. Water facilities and mills used for the provision of flour were also knocked out. The destruction involved gave no recognition to the principles of civilian distinction or proportionality or to international law. There was then the succeeding notion that one could install a blockade against the principles of international law and seek to punish an entire population.

I visited Gaza for the first time in the 1980s. I was there in 2005, a few weeks after the withdrawal of Israel, with Andreas van Agt, the former Dutch Prime Minister, and others. I was also there on the most recent visit by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. On that occasion was saw children playing on top of piles of rubble. We could also see the evidence of replacement housing which could have been finished as it needed roofs, slates and so forth. The money was there in what had been pledged by the region to enable reconstruction to take place. That was being impeded.

I am sick and tired of listening to the suggestion that there is a regular flow of supplies into Gaza from Israel. John Ging, one of the most respected servants we have and of whom we should be proud, has put his life at risk to run the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and has consistently stated that what is required is to provide housing and medicine. We are speaking about 1.1 million people, 56% of whom are children, 80% of whom are unemployed and more than 70% of whom rely on international aid for their food. I often think about this.

When I went first in the 1980s people were in refugee camps. Approximately 70% of the people in Gaza are refugees. I remember an old woman asking me what would she tell her grandchildren. Her grandchildren are now the people in Hamas. If one could point to one's father or one's grandparents and state that nothing has been achieved, what kind of situation is being created?

I have always stated it was a disaster to have a general proscription of talks with Hamas. I do not speak for Hamas but I know that its proscription by the European Union was a mistake because there was division within Hamas between the political wing and those in favour of military action. It was a very bad decision taken by heads of mission rather than Ministers and was one of those unaccountable decisions. The proscription stopped the evolution of talks that might have taken place and created an atmosphere for peace. The European Union will end up talking to Hamas anyway.

If we are not to waste what happened this week the response we should have morally to the loss of nine lives is that we should realise that statements are not enough. There must be actions, such as diplomatic actions and actions in concert, that will force a real discussion on peace.

I do not want to appear foolish but even when a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was bombed during Operation Cast Lead, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Romania refused to issue a statement condemning the action. On the other hand, and it is to their credit, five states, namely, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland and Sweden immediately issued statements condemning the action. I do not underestimate the task within the European Union in achieving a common position but we cannot wait any longer for it.

At 1.15 p.m. on Thursday, Ambassador Evrony will appear before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. People like me have always condemned the firing of rockets at any civilian population. That too is a breach of humanitarian law. I have been in Sderot and I have seen the rockets fired there. It makes no sense that Hamas, which is holding Gilad Shalit, a young Israeli soldier, denies access to him by the Red Cross. That is our position, but the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs regularly returns to the position that those of us in favour of international law, against the blockade, who want talks to open to include the political wing of Hamas, against the evictions in Jerusalem, against the extension of settlements in occupied territories of the West Bank or who are in favour of increasing a flow of necessary materials to Gaza are somehow or another presented as uncritical supporters of terrorism or at least on the fringes of it. We are no such thing. However, I must say unequivocally that no country has the right to set itself above international law.

We had this discussion in the early days of the Iraq war. It was the abuse of the principle of a pre-emptive strike. What people are stating, outside of the United Nations charter and in an abuse of that charter and international law, is that they have the right to decide what is a threat, and a right to interpret intentions at the point of departure in such a way as to enable them to make a strike in international waters leading to a loss of life. This has no status - none at all. If people want to look at the discussion taking place on the Iraq war in the neighbouring island of Britain they will see it has no basis in law whatsoever. How parliaments in Europe are challenged this week in Europe is to watch on while law is being debased and political language does not mean anything anymore, watch people being murdered on the high seas, watch children continue to be starved and watch humanitarian actions mocked. That is what is at stake.

What happens now? When Denis Halliday spoke at 6.30 this morning he simply stated that they were not seeking a confrontation but want to go with the Rachel Corrie and deliver the cement, school books, school supplies and other items being carried and then return home peacefully. If Israel interferes with that either in international waters or in the waters adjacent to Gaza it is deliberately stating that it does not care tuppence about us, the European Union, international law or humanitarian need. If that is the case, it is important that before the House goes into recess we reply appropriately. I have every confidence in the Minister doing so. I have stated that is why the resolution includes the provision that he will take such diplomatic actions as are appropriate in responding to this incident and responding to the situation in which we may find ourselves. I hope it does not come to that.

On Thursday I would like to hear that there will be acceptance by Israel of an international inquiry and acceptance that these tragic losses should not be lost as an opportunity to resume real and meaningful talks; that there will be an ending of the blockade to Gaza; that there will be delivery of the supplies that are necessary; that there will be co-operation with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; that there will be an end to the attempt to blacken people such as John Ging; that there will be respect for the intentions of those who want to assist in a humanitarian way; and that there will be an end to the attempts to try to blacken the people involved in these activities by the suggestion that they are somehow supportive of terrorist action. We must not waste this week. Out of the tragic blackness of all of this we must seek to do something very positive that will honour international law, parliamentary decisions and the decent people of Europe, who perhaps now will acknowledge that they should have acted earlier. I hope this is what will come out of all of this. That is why I am happy, on behalf of the Labour Party, which is an international party committed to international peace, to state we support the resolution.

See this speech in context