John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

The use of the word "capture" implies a certain legitimacy. It implies that the Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, has, in the words of the Geneva Convention, "fallen into the power of the enemy and as such will be accorded the status of a prisoner of war". While I would like nothing more than this to be the case, I fear that young Corporal Shalit has been kidnapped and will pay the ultimate price should the Israelis mount a rescue mission. It remains to be seen whether his fate will be that of a prisoner of war or a murder victim.

In the meantime I suggest people sharpen their editorial act on how they refer to this. It brings back memories of the one Irish soldier who is still missing, subject to the same type of incursion. Private Kevin Joyce, from the Minister of State's part of the country, is the only Irish soldier whose body we never got back. Was he afforded the rights of a prisoner of war? Was his family afforded the right to give him a Christian burial? The answer is "No".

The Labour Party's motion states that the Palestinian Government has made considerable concessions to the Israelis. I am at a loss to understand what those concessions are. For the sake of argument I assume the motion refers to the so-called prisoners' document. This was adopted earlier this year by Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, including members of Hamas and the Fatah factions, as a basis for conciliation between the rival factions and it was subsequently ratified by the leadership of both organisations after revision. Initially the global response to this document was positive, as it appeared to implicitly recognise the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

However, it has subsequently emerged that the Hamas charter, which does not recognise Israel's right to exist, remains in force. In addition, the prisoners' document seeks to secure the right of return of refugees to their homes and properties from which they were evicted and to compensate them. This is not acceptable to the Israelis. I touched on this issue in April when we last debated Palestine. I asked then what of those who were dispossessed following the 1948 war, many of whom still live in refugee camps throughout the region. Should these people also have the right to return to their former homes?

There are more than 200,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank and a further 200,000 in and around Jerusalem. The demographic upheaval of rehousing the settlers inside Israel's 1967 borders can hardly be imagined. It is inconceivable that Israel would also allow the return of many hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. What of the 200,000 Israelis living in and around Jerusalem, which the prisoners' document claims as the capital of an independent Palestinian state? I am at a loss to understand what concessions the Hamas-led Palestinian Government has made to the Israelis and without genuine concessions I see no justification for the immediate relaxation of the EU embargo.

I support the Labour Party's call for an immediate and unequivocal ceasefire by all parties to the conflict and immediate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Government. The Israeli reaction to the abduction, kidnap or capture of Corporal Shalit is a questionable response to a complex situation by an untried and inexperienced government. There does not seem to be any plan behind the Israeli actions either politically or militarily beyond progressive escalation.

An Israeli spokesperson reflecting a lack of clarity said words to the effect that their action was a result of the kidnap but on the other hand it will not cease until rocket attacks cease. This is a mixed message. In any event the Israelis could not halt the missile attacks while inside Gaza. It is hard to see how their attacks will be more effective from outside. The arrest of the Hamas political leadership will do little to influence the Hamas militants on the ground while military incursions rarely do anything but complicate and exacerbate the situation.

There is no doubt that missile attacks and this latest incident have tried the patience of the ordinary Israeli people who have demanded a strong approach to the situation. The traditional eye for an eye approach, however, will do little to calm the situation. I would not be surprised if the only people to be strengthened by the present situation are the Hamas and the hawks within the Israeli military and political systems and that will benefit no one. If the Israeli Government wishes to make a show of strength then it should not react with force to the kidnap of its soldier. If it really wishes to show strength it should open a dialogue with the Palestinian President for only through dialogue will a fair and just peace be reached.

There is little difference between the motion and the Government amendment but I support the Government amendment because we all want peace in the Middle East. Given the people here listening to this debate and the coincidence between the Corporal Shalit kidnap and our own situation, I appeal to the Hamas Government to give us back Private Joyce.