Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is my first occasion that he has graced us with his presence for an international debate, in which this House has a long and illustrious tradition. I compliment my friends and colleagues on the Independent benches, Senator Henry and Senator Norris, for bringing this debate to the House at this time. I appreciate the non-contentious wording of the motion, which I think all of us can embrace on all sides of the House. It is often said in legal terms that the devil is in the detail.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I could not help but refer to a comment thatHarvey Morris made in the Financial Times on 11 October 2004:

Whoever takes over in Washington next week needs to explain to the Israeli leadership, because the Palestinians have already been told, that the world can no longer afford this running sore, this renewed contract for conflict, which is now set to run for at least another generation.

It is in that context that this debate and others take place. One can only despair at the amount of rhetoric that has been generated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, increasingly since the invasion of Iraq last year, with volumes of books, articles, newspapers and political debates about the rights and wrongs of that particular event.

I repeat what I said last week in the House. I really believe that it is only contributing to a somewhat sterile debate to constantly refer to what happened regarding the consequences and circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq. This House has repeatedly made its position clear. I am on the record in this House as being critical of American foreign policy in this area, especially under the Bush Administration, which has adopted a unilateral approach to international relations under the pretext that American interests come first. This is fine and right and proper, but they seem to indicate that they are living in their own world and on their own planet and that the rest of us do not matter. In fact, the key element of the debate between Senator Kerry and President Bush is about America's international relations and the way in which it will try to repair the very real damage that has been done as a result of the unilateral policies of the Bush Administration.

Senator Norris always speaks passionately and eloquently about the horrors of the loss of innocent life. There is nothing more emotive than to refer to women and children as casualties of war. It is an emotive subject. I was horrified, as I am sure the rest of the watching world was, by the massacre of more than 40 young Iraqi police trainees by their own people last week. The massacre encapsulates the unfolding tragedy in that sad country. One cannot blame the Americans or the British for that. I suggested at the outset that we should no longer focus on what happened last year. It is now a matter of history because it has been done. We should now consider how the international community will deal with the reality on the ground in Iraq.

In proposing this motion, Senators Henry and Norris referred to Shannon Airport in the context of the crisis in Iraq. I understand that the airport is used on a regular basis by over 38 airforces. The Government's decision to allow overflights by other countries and refuelling rights at Shannon Airport was based as much on the need for trust between friendly countries as it was on the legal basis on which the decision was taken by the Oireachtas. I do not doubt for a moment anything Senator Norris said about aeroplane markings, but it would have been useful if he had quoted his sources. He probably received his information from people of a particular political persuasion who are in Shannon. I do not doubt the credibility of such people, but it would have been helpful if Senator Norris had quoted the exact source of his information.

The trust which exists between friendly nations should be maintained because it is paramount. The international image of Ireland is of a non-aligned country with a proud record of peacekeeping and advancing human rights. It has earned that image because successive Governments have taken a measured and realistic view of Ireland's role in world affairs. In other words, we have cut our cloth according to our measure. Ireland is not a military power, but a small country on the periphery of Europe. We do not do wars — we do human rights, overseas development and peacekeeping, which we do very well.

While Ireland needs to protect its image abroad, it also has obligations to its people at home. It would be intolerable for the Government to direct the Garda or the Army to insist on searching every aeroplane which lands at Shannon Airport. One should consider, in the context of the remarks which were made, that all US troops brought through the airport are transported by commercial, rather than military, aircraft. Commercial decisions to refuel at Shannon Airport are taken by companies which have been employed by the US Government to carry troops. Such companies refuel their aircraft at other locations such as Frankfurt, which is in a country which fell out bitterly with the United States because of its attitude to the war in Iraq. That international relationship has yet to be repaired.

If Ireland is complicit in an illegal war, why did its supposed military allies in the US not include it in the coalition of the willing? Ireland was specifically excluded from the list of countries involved in the coalition of the willing when the US was making decisions on tendering for contracts for the restructuring and reconstruction of Iraq. The countries included on the list were those which were considered to have been complicit with, or allied to, the US invasion of Iraq. The question I have asked is a fair one, especially as Ireland is friendly with the United States.

The Taoiseach said in the Dáil, in the context of a debate on refuelling and landing rights, that Ireland's two most important bilateral relationships are with Britain and the United States. That is an historical fact, as well as an economic and practical reality. We have to live in the real world, but that does not mean we should compromise our principles. I have explained the context in which Ireland meets its international obligations. Nobody suggests for a moment that we are warmongers, or that we are complicit in any way with what is happening in Iraq. Many other non-aligned and neutral European countries, such as Sweden, have taken a particular line on Iraq. I spoke to Swedish officials about matters of mutual interest in this area when I was in Sweden last week.

I wish to discuss Palestine and Israel, particularly the Israeli defence force's demolition of houses in Rafah which has been the subject of global attention in recent months. A report published by Human Rights Watch states that the Israeli military has demolished over 2,500 Palestinian houses in the occupied Gaza Strip over the last four years. Over two thirds of the demolished houses were in Rafah, which is a densely populated refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip near the border with Egypt. Most of the 16,000 people, or more than 10% of Rafah's population, who have lost their homes are refugees. Many of them have been dispossessed for a second or third time. Major General Yom-Tov Samia, who is a former head of the Israeli defence force's southern command, claims that the houses should have been demolished and evacuated a long time ago. He considers that a strip of 300 m along both sides of the border should be cleared, regardless of the number of houses involved.

I support Senator Norris's view that it is time for this country, along with its EU neighbours, to consider seriously the possibility of economic sanctions against Israel. I do not doubt that my esteemed colleague, Senator Bradford, who is Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, will refer to a brief meeting we had last week with an Israeli citizen who proposed such sanctions. When Israeli Jews living in Israel, who know the impact sanctions would have on their community, say that sanctions are the only way of making the Israeli political establishment start to focus on attempting to look for a serious and firm resolution of the problem, then that should be given serious consideration within the EU.

Some people might think that the Israelis do not care. An internal confidential report about the international image of Israel, which had been prepared by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, was leaked to the press two weeks ago. The report stated that Israel may have some difficulties in the future if it continues its current policy of relying exclusively on the United States because the EU is likely to become one of the major international power blocs. The EU is likely to outstrip the US in terms of economic power and international political influence. The Israelis care about what the future will look like. I suggest that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, should outline the Government's views about the implementation of some form of sanction against Israel if it continues to operate the policy it is pursuing in the Gaza Strip.