Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This State should not only do what it can at international level to help secure an inclusive and viable peace process, but it should also encourage the resumption of direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians because, ultimately, this is the only mechanism that can truly resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bring about a two-state solution.

8 o’clock

This requires that we bring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict all that we have learned from the Irish peace process whilst recognising its greater complexity and different dynamic, the difficulties of the region and the competing interests, rivalry and antagonism not only of neighbouring states but also within the Muslim world generally. The fabric of the conflict is multi-layered and, too frequently, discussion of it both within and outside this House is selective and simplistic and either ignores or deliberately avoids addressing issues of complexity which present a barrier to conflict resolution.

It is regrettable that the Government refrained from tabling amendments to the motion to better reflect the more sophisticated and nuanced approach being taken to it in the context of conflict resolution as represented by the speeches delivered by our three Ministers of State yesterday evening, particularly that of the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy. I presume this was done to avoid controversy. However, the avoidance of controversy, of itself, is not a credible policy approach to an issue of such sensitivity and importance. In international relations, words matter. The wording of the motion will be examined carefully by the Israeli and Palestinian sides. How we express ourselves is important also in preserving the integrity of the neutral engagement of our Defence Forces in UN missions in the Middle East.

If we in this State are to play a real role in assisting to secure a viable and inclusive peace process, we must understand the difficulties on both sides and not simply embrace the rhetoric of one. It is widely known and understood that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may involve some shared sovereignty of East Jerusalem and continued access by all monotheistic religions to their relevant holy sites. The motion, as proposed, presents East Jerusalem as the sole preserve of Palestinians, something with which no Israeli Government could agree. The motion also calls on the Irish Government simply to recognise the state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, describing this as “a further positive contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution”. Anyone who understands the conflict and its complexities will realise a commitment to East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state alone excludes Ireland, from the Israeli perspective, as a possible contributor to securing a viable peace process. The motion is also unhelpful in portraying what it describes as “Israeli settlement construction” activities as the main obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state. This ignores the many more fundamental obstacles, including the continuing divisions between Hamas and Fatah epitomised by the collapse of the unity government.

What are the obstacles that are ignored in this motion? They include the fact that Hamas as a terrorist movement is still committed to the extermination of the Israeli state, as is Hezbollah, and that it acts as a proxy for Iran; that rockets fired from Gaza, which have resulted in three successive wars since Hamas took control of Gaza, have substantially undermined support within Israeli political parties and the public for any resolution that could render Israel vulnerable to missiles being fired from the West Bank; that President Abbas and Fatah are essentially insisting that a Palestinian state be Judenfrei; that, despite the time that has elapsed since the Oslo Accords and all the assistance that has been furnished to Palestinians, they have still failed to develop the essential democratic and state institutions required for a viable Palestinian state that respects the rule of law and protects fundamental human rights; that it is necessary to rebuild trust between politicians on all sides and for Palestinians to address and resolve their internal divisions and end self-created obstacles to a successful peace process; and the reality that any Palestinian leader who achieves a resolution with Israel that involves any compromised resolution will be a target for assassination, tragically, by some of his own people.

If this State is to make a real contribution to the resolution of the conflict, we must regard both sides in the conflict as our friends, emphasise that friendship, and not hesitate to discuss with each the realities of the other’s concerns while avoiding propagandist rhetoric connected with the conflict. As we learnt in Northern Ireland, a resolution can be brought about only if each side recognises the need for compromise. Compromise can occur only where political leaders prepare their population for pragmatic and practical compromises that bring to an end conflict and distrust. It can also only occur where neither side incites, encourages or engages in acts that generate hatred of the other. There is a continuing pretence at international level that if the Israeli Government, together with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, could agree a resolution, the conflict would be over. Tragically, this is a fantasy and will remain a fantasy until the Palestinians resolve their internal divisions and until there is a single democratically elected government governing the West Bank and Gaza. It will also remain a fantasy until such time as Israelis are assured that, subsequent to a final agreement, Hamas could not end up in power not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank and the entire Israeli state and all of its citizens - Jews, Muslims, Christians and others - would not be vulnerable to Hamas missiles.

It is extraordinary that, as movers of the motion in this House, not a single member of Sinn Féin addressed the divisions between Fatah and Hamas, the obstacles that Hamas presents to a viable peace process and the extraordinary unacknowledged reality that, since 2006, President Abbas, whom I have met many times, as well as other Palestinian leaders, whom I have met on occasion, has been unable to enter Gaza for fear of his life. The focus should be on reigniting the peace process and the reopening of talks which involve direct engagement between Israel and Palestinians. It is regrettable that motions now coming before various parliaments in Europe have little to contribute to the achievement of that objective. I believe they are a distraction from the real internal issues and dilemmas that must be addressed by both Palestinian and Israeli political leaders if any real progress is to be made.

See this speech in context