Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy's contributions included questions and a general articulation of positions. The essential items question in terms of what is and is not allowed in has been farcical at times. Depending on who one talks to, or the week or the month, some items are on and some are off. It makes absolutely no sense. Much of what has happened could have been avoided if a more sensible approach had been taken to that issue. From our discussions with UNRWA at the time it seems even materials for schools were being denied.

Another issue was that young university students who had returned home at the time of the war on Gaza were not allowed leave the area to resume their studies. We occasionally receive representations in regard to Palestinian students who cannot get out of Gaza to attend university in the United States or elsewhere. It makes no sense that future leaders should be treated this way. Education is the key to an enlightened, balanced view in life - why would one seek to suppress that? These are the issues that continue to undermine and erode confidence in the possibility of any type of future for ordinary Gazans.

In regard to Deputy Higgins's question on the potential blackening of Mr. John Ging and so on, we have been and continue to be very supportive of UNRWA. At the highest level of the United Nations we have praised its role and sought support for it. Likewise, we have sought support for UNRWA at the European Union through Baroness Catherine Ashton's office. It seems there have been attempts behind the scenes to change people's perspective on UNRWA. If the agency is undermined, whatever foundations we have will be completely eroded. I would not like to contemplate what would happen in education, health and so on if there were any significant undermining of its role and constructive contribution.

In terms of the European Union's position, it is no secret, as Deputy Durkan observed, that different member states have, for historical reasons, had different perspectives. I observed that the conclusions under the Swedish Presidency were quite satisfactory from our perspective. Having said that, when any event like this happens, there must invariably be a process even in terms of deciding on the wording that will be used in any statement that subsequently emerges. That is certainly worrying. I agree with Deputy Higgins that a breach of international law has occurred.

I understand from where Deputy Andrews is coming in terms of the "what next" question. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Pillay, referred yesterday to Israel's disdain for international law and a continuing approach which suggests more and more breaches of international law is acceptable. I stated yesterday that Israel's necessity is becoming a new international legal or moral code, with extrajudicial killings, forging of passports of citizens of other nations and in international waters the boarding of ships and the killing of people.

Deputy Timmins hit the nail on the head when he said that the actual decision to go through with this particular exercise is wherein lies the fundamental flaw. One cannot at 4 a.m. drop commanders on a boat, even if one's intention is to ensure no occurrence of disaster, and expect from this a docile response. That type of scenario always results in chaos. They could have waited for broad daylight or for the ships to come closer before doing so, as happened previously. There were other options that could have been used, as has happened on previous occasions. As I understand it, in one case a boat on which Deputies Andrews and Ó Snodaigh were on board was allowed into Gaza. On another occasion, a ship was impeded and taken to Ashdod without any dramatics. The seeds of this disaster were clearly sown in the original decision, a point that has been well made, one which any independent inquiry will have to address in terms of unravelling what happened.

See this speech in context