John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and wish him well with his new portfolio. I am confident he will carry on the good work of his predecessor, Deputy Cowen.

I wish to concentrate, in particular, on the Palestinian aspect of the motion. I welcome the fact that the motion has been framed in such a way that it can be supported across the House. At this afternoon's meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, a motion was tabled by Deputy Mulcahy. It was a good motion and I supported it. However, it was rather unfortunate the Sinn Féin put down an amendment. There was little significant difference between the motion and the amendment. The main aspect involved the European Union's role in recognising Israel and having it participate at international fora. It is important that Parliament, the Government and the European Union continue to take a unified approach on these issues as it gives authority to the views expressed. A good consensus has been achieved on Palestine over the years. I can recall at least one instance of a motion being signed by the leaders of all groups in the Seanad.

With regard to Palestine, we all view with horror the events we see daily on our television screens. Irrespective of whether it is violence perpetrated by the more extreme elements of the Palestinian population or state terrorism in the case of Israel, we must continue to be even-handed in our condemnation. I am encouraged by and support the conclusions reached by the General Affairs and External Relations Council at its meeting in Luxembourg on 11 October 2004.

I am disturbed by the apparent inconsistencies between the attitude of the United States to the Middle East, particularly with regard to Iraq but also on the issue of Palestine, and the war against terrorism. Terrorism from whatever source is unacceptable. To have authority, one must take an even-handed view. While there is no doubt that al-Qaeda and similar groups are worthy of the strongest international condemnation and the intervention of the United States, nevertheless, if the US is to fulfil the role it envisages for itself, it must also condemn terrorism when it emanates from Israel or is state inflicted.

I realise that for many years it was strategically important for the United States to have influence on the state of Israel but I am not convinced strategic reasons, other than domestic political concerns, still exist. The end of the Cold War and the US presence in Iraq make America's need to be dominant in Israel less evident. I hope that when the new administration is established, whether through a continuation of President Bush's period in office or Senator Kerry assuming the presidency, the United States will take a more even-handed approach.

If, as has happened, rockets are launched from the Jabalya refugee camp or elsewhere in the Gaza Strip into Israel inflicting terrible carnage, it is reasonable to assume that Israel would respond. The central issue, however, is that its response must be proportionate, rather than indiscriminate as has been the case.

As I stated at a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs today, I have been in the Palestinian territories twice. On the first occasion, several years ago, I visited Jabalya and another refugee camp near Bethlehem in the West Bank. I also had the good fortune to return to monitor the first Palestinian elections. This was an inspiring trip which showed the appetite for democracy among the Palestinian people who came out in enormous numbers — well over 90% of the population — to cast their votes. Polling stations had to be kept open much later than envisaged and, as I recalled earlier, we were forced to intervene when ballot boxes became stuffed with ballot papers. Even our traditional system of using a ruler to push papers further into boxes failed and we had to fetch plastic bags in which to put extra ballot papers. We then sealed the bags in front of witnesses using sealing wax to ensure they remained confident that the integrity of the ballot had not been breached.

During these visits, I was particularly struck by the total disregard of the rights under law of the Palestinian people. Bulldozers arrived to demolish houses in which the occupants were suspected of harbouring terrorists or others who were perhaps more marginal to the conflict. The occupants had no recourse when this occurred or when settlers took land that had been in Palestinian hands for generations, evicted people from their homes and settled on the land on the basis of some presumed biblical legitimacy.

I was in France over the weekend where CNN, a channel of which I am not an enthusiast and would not choose to watch, appears to be the only English language television channel available. My view was reinforced as I watched an elderly lady who had been born in England, reared in the United States and now lives in the Gaza Strip state she did not accept that she must move home as a result of Prime Minister Sharon's initiative. Her home had been appropriated under false pretence from somebody who had title to the property. If that were to happen here, there would, correctly, be uproar.

As to the way forward the Council, at its October meeting, reaffirmed the elements laid down by the European Council in March 2004. This is the correct approach. It stated:

The Council reiterated its view that proposals for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and part of the Northern West Bank could represent a significant step towards the implementation of the Roadmap, provided that it comprises a full and complete withdrawal and is implemented in accordance with the five elements laid down by the European Council in March 2004, i.e:

It took place in the context of the Roadmap; it was a step towards a two-state solution it did not involve a transfer of settlement activity to the West Bank; there was an organised and negotiated hand-over of responsibility to the Palestinian Authority; and Israel facilitated the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Gaza.

While these are important conditions, money is also important. When one visits Gaza it becomes evident that the area urgently needs a capital injection. The World Bank and other international agencies must provide support to ensure the Palestinian Authority can operate with a degree of financial security.

The Council also called for the "resumption of security co-operation and direct negotiations between the parties, as called for in the Roadmap." The central issue, reiterated by the Taoiseach when he addressed the matter recently, is that the road map must act as a template, which sets down the actions which must be taken if progress is to be achieved. We cannot start to re-negotiate it in response to violence and I hope the Government will take a determined position in this regard.

Ireland has an opportunity to act as an honest broker, a capacity we have demonstrated domestically with regard to Northern Ireland and in our conduct in international fora, including the United Nations and the European Union. We have authority beyond our size and position in the world.

The wall separating the Palestinians from the Israelis has been held to be unlawful. An executive of CRH, when asked about this matter at a recent meeting I attended, replied that the company had invested in the only cement company in Israel, which in turn only provided cement for the wall. He almost gave the impression that CRH had nothing to do with the wall, which is not the case. It can decide to invest in such companies. Ethics come into play in this regard — I say this as a shareholder in the company — and CRH has responsibilities which it should fulfil.