Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome An Tánaiste and salute him on his real engagement with this issue. I do not think anyone in the House is disputing that. I commend Senator Black on introducing the Bill. In essence, there is not a person in this House, and very few outside it in this country, who in any way countenance the settlements. They are a horror to all of us. They are illegal and they are wrong on every front. There is discrimination in the supply of water and energy. There is 40% unemployment in Gaza. The list goes on. It is a horror and it is wrong. There is no ambiguity about that. We are unequivocally of that view. That is the Tánaiste's view and the view of every Member of the House. I am sure that is the view of the great majority of the people outside this House. We are all unambiguously clear on the issue. It is also a horror that 130 Palestinians have been killed in recent weeks during protests. The Israeli reaction has been deemed to be excessive by the UN.

The questions before the House are how to respond to that and what is the proportionate and wise response. There is no question about the horror involved and we could all speak for an hour on that. I would like to have spoken much more graphically on the issue.The question presented today is whether we take the Tánaiste's advice based on the advice he received from the Attorney General, his experience internationally and, more important in this context, his experience of visiting the Middle East on a number of occasions and interacting on this issue with colleagues at all levels in the European Union. The Tánaiste's advice is to hold off on this because he believes its impact will be minimal and it will diminish Ireland's moral authority and the possibility, as a small neutral state, to politically impact on the situation. It will not, therefore, have a proportionate effect. The question is which position which will have more impact. Should we continue to make progress and work strenuously as a neutral state with moral authority and a tradition of respect for the human being, freedom, independence and justice or, by doing this against the Tánaiste's advice, should we put ourselves out of that frame in respect of the same kind of moral authority and politically impactful role? Coupled with that, we have the legal advice from the Attorney General, which does not need further elucidation. The real issue is the first question I posed.

I appeal to my good friend and colleague, Senator Black, in this instance. She showed great maturity and political cop-on in previously accepting the Tánaiste's advice to wait. I know it is hard to do so twice but that advice has not been given lightly. Perhaps it would be more impactful to comment and protest but to see whether we can deal with the question diplomatically and keep it under review. My colleagues have two other specific points they want to make. That is, in essence, the question before the House.