John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

It is depressing that this House once again returns to the issue of peace in the Middle East within days of a murderous suicide attack in Egypt and just over a week after a bomb attack in Tel Aviv killed nine people. Nevertheless, I welcome the debate and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I welcome also the comments of the Minister, Deputy Ahern, and the Government's continuing commitment to peace and justice in the Middle East, for there can be no peace without justice. Justice is a much abused term. At its most simplistic, justice is viewed as retributive. The phrases "An eye for an eye" and "A tooth for a tooth" are familiar to us all but they are only too familiar to the people of Israel and Palestine.

I would like to explore another concept of justice, namely, that of a just society. I have no doubt that is what the international community intended in 1947 when the United Nations called for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international zone under UN jurisdiction. Perhaps that was a Utopian dream but had men and women of goodwill from both sides of the religious divide stepped forward at that stage, we may have avoided some 60 years of conflict.

I have no wish to take Members down the path of history; that path has been well travelled by others far better versed in the issues than me. Broken promises, British misrule, mutual distrust and three wars have brought us to where we are today. Nevertheless, history is important. There will be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unless past injustices are acknowledged and forgiven and restitution granted to those who have lost family members and land over the past 60 years.

During my time in the United Nations in that particular region, I saw injustices on both sides and for every one I could name on one side, I could name another on the other side. I could express outrage at events I witnessed, the behaviour of the Israelis or the disregard for human life shown by the Palestinians. All of that would be to no avail as there is wrong on both sides. Democratic states must uphold certain principles. They must acknowledge the rule of law. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian people have recently elected new Governments and it is time those governments committed themselves to the rule of law. The Hamas-led Government of Palestine must recognise Israel's right to exist and prevent any further attacks on Israel by its citizens such as the one in Tel Aviv last week.

Likewise, the new Israeli Government has obligations. Attacks such as those last week cannot be punished by indiscriminate acts of retaliation against targets on the West Bank or in the Gaza Strip. Suicide attacks, as with any terrorist attacks, are abhorrent and a crime against humanity but by their very nature the perpetrators cannot be brought to justice. Seeking revenge against their families only breeds more hatred and gathers more recruits for martyrdom. To open a dialogue with those who can prevent such attacks is a true sign of strength.

There is much to discuss and many obstacles on the roadmap to peace. The question of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and the so-called security fence remain the biggest obstacles to progress along the road to peace from a Palestinian perspective. I have stated before and I state again that the security fence is nothing but a device for stealing more Palestinian land. Once built, it will copper-fasten Israeli occupation of sections of the West Bank. Even if Israel were to relinquish its hold on the West Bank and abandon its settlements, a topic I will return to, those areas on the wrong side of the wall will never be returned to the Palestinians. In any case, the argument that the wall will provide total security for Israel and its citizens is a fantasy. The only true security will be found in a full and fair settlement of the Palestinian question.

The question of the settlement is interesting. Should Israel relinquish control of the West Bank, would it also remove its settlers as it did in the Gaza Strip? Currently, there are in excess of 200,000 Israeli settlers living on the West Bank with a further 200,000 in or around Jerusalem, which was annexed in 1967. Could the Palestinian Authority guarantee the safety of those settlers should they decide to live out their lives in a free Palestine? Even if Jerusalem were declared an international city, as the UN originally envisaged, would the Palestinian Authority have the ability or even the will to safeguard those who remain on the West Bank? These are serious questions that cannot be answered by the Israelis and the Palestinians alone. Without doubt, should Israel decide to withdraw its settlers, the international community will have to fund their resettlement. Should they remain so disposed, Palestinians will need recompense for the lost lands and help to restart their lives. In any event, the international community will have to foot the bill and I hope this country will be to the fore in providing such funding.

West Bank Palestinians are not the only people to have lost lands since the foundation of the state of Israel. What of those who were dispossessed following the 1948 war, many of whom are still living in refugee camps throughout the region? Should these people also be given the right to return to their former homes? Palestinian citizens who remained in the country when the state of Israel was created currently amount to approximately 20% of the Israeli population, a percentage which is steadily growing. If these people were joined by returning Palestinian refugees, how would this affect the political balance of power in Israel? We should ponder the effect of the votes of approximately 1 million Unionists on the balance of power in this State. This should give us some idea of the possible changes facing Israel.

These are significant questions for Israel and the international community. What of the questions facing the Palestinian Authority? Will it finally recognise Israel's right to exist and safeguard its borders from incursions by militants? Will it, in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, guarantee Israel's access to vital water supplies? As a democrat, I support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to choose their own government but I believe that on this occasion, democracy has not served the Palestinian people well. The Hamas-led Government shows no sign of living up to its responsibilities and no sign that it will answer any of the questions I have posed. This is why I support the decision of the EU to suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Others take a different view. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have all promised the Palestinian Authority funding as not to do so would render those most vulnerable in Palestinian society even more vulnerable. While I may differ with them, I understand their reasons for granting this humanitarian aid. However, I cannot countenance the blatantly political nature of Iran's offer of funding, coming at a time of rising tension due to that country's development of nuclear power and its continuing verbal attacks on the state of Israel. The intervention of Tehran in the tinderbox of Israeli-Palestinian relations is unwelcome and one can only hope that wiser heads prevail in the Palestinian Authority and that Tehran's fanatical rhetoric is not echoed elsewhere.

I urge the international community to continue its struggle to make progress along the road to peace. A fair and just peace would benefit the people of Israel and Palestine and the family of nations throughout the Middle East. I support the Government's continuing efforts to bring peace to the region. I am sure the Members of this House will do all they can to bring closure to a conflict which has been a running sore in international politics for far too long.