Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 80: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the breakdown of talks, hosted by the United States of America, between Israeli and Palestinian representatives, due to the increase in the development of illegal settlements; and his further views as to what this might mean for any peace agreement in the region [36173/10]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Despite the many difficulties remaining, the direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders that commenced on 2 September present a historic opportunity to at last achieve a just and lasting peace. Compounding the complexity of the issues has been a deep lack of trust between the two sides, with each believing the other is not serious about negotiations. Ireland and the European Union continue to regard Israeli settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories as illegal. However, without prejudice to that position, the partial freeze on new settlement construction ordered by Prime Minister Netanyahu in November 2009, limited as it was, was an important element in creating the atmosphere to allow these talks to begin. Ireland, along with our EU partners, with the United States and many others, strongly urged Israel to renew the construction freeze when it expired on 26 September, in order to allow the talks to continue. As I made clear in my speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 27 September, it is deeply regrettable that the Israeli Government has not done so and has allowed construction to resume.

Settlements and borders are only one of the issues which must be resolved in the negotiations. However, continued settlement construction is intended to circumscribe a negotiated peace by creating facts on the ground which any agreement must accept. It also involves the progressive expropriation of Palestinian lands, expulsion of families, and destruction of their homes. These factors would make it extremely difficult for President Abbas to continue in the talks, which have not yet progressed far enough to create stronger confidence in their outcome and he has stated clearly that he cannot do so if construction resumes.

At this moment the United States is working hard with both parties to find a formula that will allow the talks to continue, perhaps in the form of a limited extension of the freeze for a short period. It is not clear yet if these efforts will succeed. The foreign ministers of the Arab League agreed on 8 October to allow a further month for the US efforts to continue before deciding if the talks can proceed.

These talks may be the last opportunity for a long time to achieve a just settlement based on two states living side by side in peace and security. If this effort fails, new generations of leaders in Palestine and the wider Arab world may have no appetite to continue on this road. To avoid this and achieve lasting peace, maximum restraint for the duration of these talks would be a small price.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Anyone must conclude that far from there being any element of trust or good faith going into these talks, it is singularly absent, as the events that have taken place prove. I might put a number of questions to the Minister. In respect of his statement, which I accept, to the effect that the issues of borders and settlements are two huge areas, I note that one of the parties in government in the Knesset has announced that it will require of the 20% of Palestinians who live in the state of Israel that they take an oath of loyalty to the Jewish state of Israel. This is a fact. Again, with regard to the statement that it is not just that the settlements - I appreciate the Minister's emphasis - are in themselves illegal. There also are the evictions that are taking place in East Jerusalem, something that has heightened in recent times. Moreover, the extension of the settlements across the Jordan Valley has the effect, to put it plainly, effectively of dividing the West Bank into cantons, thereby making matters almost impossible.

There is nothing to sustain the talks in practical terms such as, for example, a permanent secretariat that might take on the issues of settlements, evictions, borders, the future of Jerusalem and so on. Such an initiative on the ground would function as a conduit to the opinions of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab states, which might ensure continuity past the breakdown of a particular set of talks.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no difficulty with much of what the Deputy has said in terms of the events that have happened which, when taken together, undermine the prospects of a peaceful settlement. I share Deputy Higgins's objections to the proposed oath of loyalty which is provocative and counter-productive to the peace process itself. It is wrong. What is clear is that there are forces within Israeli society which do not perhaps want the talks to succeed, just as on the Palestinian side there is Hamas and others externally who likewise do not wish to see a successful outcome.

I made the point when I met in New York with Mr. Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, and members of the Arab League that we must create space to give the talks a chance. The Quartet, the United States and Mr. Tony Blair, as the Quartet's envoy in the Middle East, have been at pains to point out to us that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, is essentially the only person in government at this point in time who can deliver a deal from the Israeli side. Moreover, it has been communicated to us by all involved that he sincerely wants an agreement, just as it has been communicated to us that the Palestinian President, Mr. Abbas, seeks an agreement. Efforts are continuing in that regard and I am pleased the Arab League has given at least a month to see if something can be worked out informally in order to allow the talks to continue.

I take on board Deputy Higgins's final point in terms of the capacity behind the talks and the need for continuity. What has tended to happen in regard to the Annapolis process is that when an Israeli Prime Minister retires or whatever, the entire process stalls.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are all agreed that we want peace to happen and we support the efforts of the Quartet in this regard. However, if one takes the full list of issues - including prisoners, refugees, the future status of Jerusalem, settlements in the West Bank, borders and so on - they all require a type of permanent structure such as could be delivered through a secretariat. Moreover, the existence of a secretariat would mean that when the political moment is not hopeful, one could deal, through text, with aspects of the problem. Such a structure, as I said, would also be a conduit to the Arab League and to the Foreign Ministers of the region and so on.

There is a difficulty in that some members of the Quartet are not engaged at all. As a consequence one is pushed to a reliance on talks which are suddenly loaded with a political outcome. One wishes the process well and hopes that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, will deliver agreement, but one is still left with all the other issues. The position of the United States as a guarantor on one side of the argument means it is very reluctant to delegate anything to a secretariat that might be in continuous dialogue about the issue. I see nothing tangible from the efforts of Mr. Blair since his arrival in his role.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I travelled to the West Bank two years to meet with the Palestinian team which was in preparation for the Annapolis process.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The members of that team were very good.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, they had a great deal of issues worked out. However, I got the sense that all of it was at one remove from the political process that was under way. In essence, these people had not been called upon in terms of the detailed work which has to go into resolving issues. The Deputy seems to be suggesting a mechanism to pull all of the work that has been done together and which has political approval. That proposal has value.