JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 13 Apr 2010

The first item on the agenda is an exchange of views with Mr. Dore Gold, who is a former ambassador of Israel to the United Nations and the current director of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs. He is particularly welcome in the present circumstances. Over the past couple of years, the Joint Committee on European Affairs, in accordance with its work programme, which is similar to the work programmes of the European Parliament and the European Commission, has observed events in Israel and the Middle East in general, as it has in a number of other locations, such as the western Balkans. Everybody says someone should do something positive about events of this nature. The committee has adopted a policy of trying to make contact with various personalities and people of influence in the respective regions, with a view to assisting in some way on the basis of similar experiences on this island. I do not suggest that the difficulties on this island have been resolved in their entirety, but we feel we know how it could be done at this stage.

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Gold is free to address the committee. The normal procedure is that witnesses give a ten to 15 minute address and then we have questions and answers and a closing statement if it is needed.

I thank the Chairman for hosting me in this committee meeting and I thank members for their attendance. Many of us in the world today are wondering how best Middle East peace can be advanced, what are the current stumbling blocks and why we have not yet concluded a final peace there. I wish to try to address that question in the time available.

I identify four problems that have been hovering over Palestinian-Israeli-Arab contacts. If we address them we might be able to move things forward. There is great confusion about what is the source of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian neighbours. The tendency has been to say this is territorial conflict and if the Palestinians get a state and Israel withdraws then we have more or less provided the basis for resolving the differences in the region. Unfortunately, I do not think that is the case. The situation is far more complicated. To illustrate my point I wish to share with the committee an observation about what happened in the Gaza Strip in 2005. Israel proposed, prior to September 2005 when it pulled out of Gaza, to unilaterally leave the area.

The Gaza Strip, along with the West Bank, are two disputed territories which came under Israeli control in the 1967 Six Day War and since then have been the subject of negotiations and discussions in various international meetings. In the case of the unilateral pull-out from Gaza in 2005 many people in Israel expected that this would trigger a positive reaction. If indeed the complaint on the Palestinian side had been that Israel was sitting on land that the Palestinians claimed was part of their future state then one would expect Israel removing itself from that territory would result in a reduction in the level of hostility between the Palestinians and Israel. That should have translated itself in terms of a reduction, for example, in the levels of military operations against the State of Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Moreover, one might have expected in Israel in 2005 if Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip that the Palestinians would have the opportunity to create the foundations of part of a Palestinian state. They also have ambitions to have a state in the West Bank. That might have expressed itself in a couple of ways. First, most people in the west do not know it but there are huge natural gas resources in the Mediterranean offshore from Gaza. Prime Minister Ehud Barak turned those resources over to Yasser Arafat as a gesture prior to the Camp David summit in 2000. Had they been developed, those resources would have provided the basis for a huge amount of cash inflow into a future Palestinian economy. Israeli settlers, 9,000 of whom had left the Gaza Strip as part of a unilateral withdrawal, had already established a substantial agribusiness in northern Gaza which was turned over to the Palestinians and could have provided the possibility of creating agriculture for export to Europe and other parts of the world.

The Israeli pull-out could have been followed up by different types of development in the Gaza Strip and certainly greater moderation. Unfortunately, after Israel pulled out, what occurred were two things. First, rather than Fatah winning the Palestinian elections, Hamas won. Hamas is a militant group and a terrorist organisation according to the European Union, the United States and Israel. The Hamas victory in the January 2006 election was later followed in 2007 by a Hamas coup against the residual elements of power of the Fatah movement in the Gaza Strip. The direction of developments in Gaza went in an extremely negative direction.

The second development that occurred was that the military situation deteriorated dramatically. If one addresses a political grievance one would expect that the level of militancy, the flames of rage, would drop. However, what happened was the opposite. There were 179 rocket attacks in 2005 from the Gaza Strip into Israel. The rocket attacks began in 2001. After Israel left Gaza, rather than the number of attacks dropping, they shot up. They did not double or triple, they increased by 500%. Since Israel removed itself from that sensitive Philadelphia route, as it is called, between the Gaza Strip and the Egyptian Sinai, the number of smuggling tunnels increased dramatically and the opportunities for moving in higher quality rocketry into the Gaza Strip increased. It was only after Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip that Grad rockets manufactured in either China or Iran began appearing in the Hamas arsenal. That increased the number of Israeli cities that were affected by Hamas rocket attacks. It was not just Sderot and the kibbutzim in Moshavim in the area around the Gaza Strip but now the threat extended to Ashkelon and Ashdod in the north and outwards to Beersheva eventually in the east. Therefore, the situation became far more critical.

I mentioned that in the context of the cause of hostility if Israel removed itself from the territory of Gaza perhaps someone would wage guerrilla warfare against Israel on the West Bank but Gaza should be quiet. It should not get worse. The reason it is getting worse, and this is part of the diagnosis I wish to share with the committee, is because the sources of conflict are not related necessarily to the territorial issue but they are related to Hamas's principal allies, the Muslim Brotherhood, an international organisation based originally in Egypt of which Hamas is only the Palestinian branch. More significantly it is related to Iran because Iran is now seeking hegemony across the Middle East.

Iran is threatening Arab states such as Bahrain and sending cells of Hizbollah with the revolutionary guards to Egypt. It is threatening Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. It is active in the civil war in Yemen and it became active in the Gaza Strip. Rather than see that the solution to the conflict is necessarily just what Israel does, one cannot divorce the solution to the conflict from what external actors are doing.

I am not an expert on the history of Northern Ireland. I barely have newspaper knowledge of what goes on in this part of the world. However, one thing I can say is that the conflict that people endured for many years here was not caused by some European country, other than of course the British issue, such as France or Germany sending forces or money into the conflict and heating it up. It had to be resolved with the British but that was a separate issue. What I am trying to say is that this conflict is exacerbated and has often escalated directly as a result of Iranian involvement. I wish to point out that it is a very different situation. If Iran's involvement in our conflict and its quest for hegemony are not addressed then it becomes very hard to set down the foundations for a complete solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The second reason I think we have had difficulties in resolving the conflict relates to the fact that we are not getting a response to initiatives we take. The current Israeli Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke a lot of new ground. He announced his readiness to accept Palestinian statehood, which for him was a new and changed position on the Middle East. There was no reciprocal move. A second development that occurred was when Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Government accepted a ten-month settlement freeze. Many people in the west perhaps take for granted the freezing of settlement construction. I do not talk about new settlements, I refer to construction in an existing settlement which does not change the geographic situation on the ground so that Israelis living in the West Bank can have a place for their families. That was not a stipulation in the Oslo agreements. When Yitzhak Rabin signed the agreements with Yasser Arafat in 1993 there was no settlement freeze, no limitation on Palestinian or Israeli construction on the West Bank contained in them. It was not an issue.

When Ehud Barak went to Camp David in 2000 to negotiate with Yasser Arafat under the auspices of the then US President, Bill Clinton, there was no freeze on Israeli or Palestinian construction. The same was true when the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, sat down with Mahmoud Abbas in 2008 to try to work out a final status arrangement. Again, there was no precondition that the parties must freeze construction on either side.

Nonetheless, even though it was not a legally binding requirement of the State of Israel, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as a confidence-building measure, said Israel would freeze construction in the West Bank for ten months. However, there was no reciprocal move on the other side. From what I have read in press reports, the US President, Barack Obama, pointed out to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that the Israelis were freezing construction, a new move on their part, which they and other Arab states should match. There was a suggestion that Israeli civil aircraft flying east to India or Bangkok could cut across Saudi airspace to save time. The Saudis refused to listen about it. Such a reciprocal move would have helped create a better environment for moving forward.

Another factor affecting the peace discussions is the problem of preconditions and unilateralism. It is no secret that the US Government came to Israel with the idea, first, of freezing construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In recent weeks a request has been added that Israel freeze construction in Jewish neighbourhoods in the eastern side of Jerusalem. This is largely being interpreted as a new precondition for negotiations. If those preconditions never existed before, why should they exist now? How does this help us move to a situation where the parties will sit across from one another?

What also makes the environment more problematic is the suggestion that exists in many official circles, mainly said in private, that there will be an initiative at the UN Security Council, perhaps by the European countries, to suggest a Palestinian state should be created without negotiation. It may involve putting down a draft resolution, for example, saying it is time for the international community to recognise the state of Palestine within the 1967 lines.

I suggest this scenario because this idea came up in a speech in London in 2009 by Javier Solana, the former EU foreign policy czar. It is now a common wisdom that is spreading among people in the Middle East. What incentive is there for the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table if they are hearing that certain international actors are going to give them what they want by adopting a resolution that resolves the very subject of negotiations at the UN Security Council? This third factor has made the negotiating environment and moving a real peace process forward more difficult.

A fourth factor is the issue of mutual recognition. When the Oslo agreements were signed in September 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat had an exchange of letters about mutual recognition between the Palestinian and Israeli people. That became a cardinal underpinning of any peace process. The exchange was not a final recognition of the two parties but the beginning of a movement towards mutual recognition, which we felt was very important to get a peace process going.

On the Palestinian side, unfortunately, there has been the tendency to deny the fundamental right of the Jewish people to their own homeland, a right that has existed in both the League of Nations and the United Nations but one that is very difficult for Palestinian officials to acknowledge. Since the 2000 Camp David summit, statements have been issued denying the historical connection of the Jewish people to their land. During the summit, when the then US President, Bill Clinton, addressed the issue of Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat told him he kept talking about the Temple of Solomon and the connection of the Jews to Jerusalem when in fact the temple never existed. Later Yasser Arafat told the Arabic press that the temple existed elsewhere, in Nablus or Yemen.

I knew Yasser Arafat well as I had negotiated with him previously. Many times he would come with a wild idea to throw off the people on the other side of the table. This was more than a wild idea or more than a cunning use of twisted history. It became an ideology, which I call temple denial in my book, The Fight for Jerusalem. It has spread quickly with statements from Nabil Shaath, Saeb Erekat and Yasser Abed Rabbo all denying the existence of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.

At the summit, Bill Clinton replied to Yasser Arafat that he was a Christian and that in his tradition the apostles all went up to the Temple Mount. He refused to accept the statement. However, every time there is an archaeological discovery connecting the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland, Palestinian spokespersons get upset. In 2008, Salem Fayadh, considered by the West to be a moderate, spoke about Jerusalem and its Muslim and Christian connections at the United Nations General Assembly. He never spoke about the Jewish connection.

That is why Benjamin Netanyahu said that if he is asked to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people to a Palestinian state, he also wants to hear the recognition of the rights of the Jewish people to their own nation-state. Unless that fundamental mutual recognition is achieved, then what is there to do?

These are some of the elements that have obstructed the peace process. On the European level, it is extremely important for European states to tell Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership that they expect the PLO and the Palestinian Authority to sit with Israel and begin negotiations. If the Palestinians believe they will get the solution they want delivered to them on a silver platter, then we will never move from step one to step two.

Negotiations would produce an outcome that would reflect a compromise between the two sides. Many times we are asked if Israel is willing to go back to the 1967 lines. However, this is not written in UN Security Resolution No. 242, the only agreed basis to the peace process. Dividing Jerusalem is also not written into the resolution.

At the negotiations, the Palestinians can bring to the table what they want and we can bring our needs. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, put it well when she laid out a formula for starting negotiations as the Palestinians wanting a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines; the Israelis wanting secure and recognised boundaries as stated in UN Security Council Resolution No. 242.

We believe it is possible to reconcile these two goals. The only way to achieve this is through reaching a compromise. The only way to reach a compromise is if both parties sit down and negotiate one-to-one. The most important thing Europe can do is encourage the Palestinians to do exactly that. They will not get all they are hoping for, and neither will Israel, but through compromise, reason and the good services of Senator Mitchell, who was very instrumental in this part of the world, we believe we can move forward. However, we need Ireland's support for real compromise and negotiations and not for the current posture we are witnessing today.

I welcome Mr. Gold to the meeting. He is very welcome to Ireland. I appreciate his wide-ranging contribution here today.

On the Gaza strip, it is clear that excessive force was used against the Palestinians just over 12 months ago. The Palestinians lost more than 1,400 lives, women and children were involved and some 11 or 12 Israelis were also killed. There is a serious question of human rights involved and there can be no resolution unless human rights are respected in the Gaza strip. With a population of 1.5 million there, the Palestinians are practically locked into that small area. They are being deprived of resources, food and construction materials to rebuild the area after the bombing by Israel. I should like the ambassador to concentrate on these issues which are fundamental to any settlement in the region.

I have not heard of resources off the coast of Gaza which could be made available to the Palestinians. I do not know whether their existence has been confirmed but if Israel does not allow the Palestinians to use the ports in Gaza and continues to prevent the airport from being re-opened facilitating access, there is not much point in talking about resources off the coast. The chances of finding oil or gas there are pretty slim, to say the least, and it is the first I have heard of it.

I suggest that, naturally, there will have to be a negotiated settlement. We fully support the fact that the Israeli and Palestinian states have a right to exist. Israel absolutely has a right to exist as an independent democratic nation in that region, surrounded by Arab nations. However, the Palestinian people have a right to their own jurisdiction, and we accept all that. I believe, nonetheless, that Gaza is a key area and I request that Mr. Gold uses his influence to try and bring about a settlement of the region so that human rights, at least, are respected, medical aid and food allowed in and border crossings rendered more flexible to allow the many people who want to contribute to that region to do so in an open manner. The Israelis are in control of that situation.

I also welcome Mr. Gold and thank him for his fine presentation. The point made by Senator Leyden is a telling one and needs to be addressed, namely, the question of the incursion into Gaza, the continuing blockade and the fact that billions of euro are in readiness for the building and reconstruction of Gaza, but it is not being allowed to happen. There is also the question of the continuing situation on the ground there. Most of us around this table have been there since the Israeli incursion and effectively see Gaza as pretty much an open prison at this time. This is a running sore that probably adds fuel to the issues surrounding the Middle East.

With regard to the first point made by the ambassador about the broader geopolitical context, involving Iran, and that country seeking to establish a hegemony — about which the wider international community is taking a strong stand in the context of the United Nations, the EU and elsewhere – is it not true, however, that the running sore being pointed to by the Muslim community stems from an injustice which world perception in general puts down to Israeli intransigence? This gives oxygen to a country such as Iran which claims it is standing on behalf of the underdog and allows it, along with some other countries, to garner some international credibility for their stand, which perhaps is not deserved. While a solution must be found to this broader question because it is not coming about it is giving oxygen to the continuation of the broader political crisis in the Middle East.

I am not quite sure where Israel stands as regards a negotiated settlement. Is Mr. Gold saying that both sides should now come to the table without any preconditions whatsoever? Are we talking about the quartet position, a precondition of a two-state solution or of the pre-1967 borders or no precondition at all, with both sides coming to the table with whatever baggage they have to try to hammer out a resolution? Is that what Mr. Gold envisages so that in some manner a compromise may come about?

The settlements which took place, willy-nilly, in the past without any perception of injustice or unfairness, have encroached on areas that were occupied by the Palestinians, whether on the West Bank or in east Jerusalem. When one visits those areas one sees that there are provocative encroachments, for instance in the way the roads are lined up. Certain roads can only be used by settlers so there is, at all times, a squeezing of the Palestinians both in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

Mr. Gold might say something about the new military order that has been introduced only this week. It seems to give carte blanche to the Israeli Defence Forces to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and east Jerusalem if they are regarded as trouble makers of some description, infiltrators, sojourners or whatever the wording is. All of this would seem to be a hostile and provocative, challenging and encroaching type of development that naturally will get a response. Otherwise, people just throw up their hands and leave matters as they are.

In those circumstances it is very difficult to see any meaningful negotiations taking place – and that is the perception from the outside world looking in. The other side of the coin is that if this is the situation as we perceive it to be, is there then not an onus on us to take some action, in terms of the European Union and in terms of Ireland, either in the context of sanctions or as regards existing trade agreements that might be upgraded or downgraded?

These are the issues on the ground that we are coming to terms with. I have not heard anything in what Mr. Gold had to say that would change my opinion in any substantive fashion.

I also welcome Mr. Gold. I know he has had a long day because he attended the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier, which I am sure was an interesting experience. I am sorry I was late but I heard most of Mr. Gold's presentation on my television monitor.

I was a member of the foreign affairs committee for a few years and at one stage we had planned an official trip to Iran. At about that time, the Iranians decided that they would hold a Holocaust denial conference, so we cancelled our meetings. We did so because there is strong support between our country and Mr. Gold's country. A former President of Israel, Mr. Herzog, was born off the South Circular Road in Dublin, which contained a very vibrant Jewish community at the time. There is a good association between us and I hope all of our discussions are positive.

The issue of human rights is key in our work with the European Union. The European Convention on Human Rights is now incorporated into our law. The convention is contained in the Lisbon treaty, which we finally adopted a short time ago. I also happen to be a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, of which Israel is also a member. It is one of the few organisations where all the countries of Europe sit down in a parliamentary assembly. It is a great thing, because our aim is for Israel to be left in peace. However, the issue of human rights, vis-à-vis the Palestinians and internally, is a cause for concern. An essential part of the EU’s neighbourhood policy is that European human rights must be part of any country that wants a favoured relationship with the Union. The great thing about the EU is that it raises standards. Some countries had capital punishment on their statute books, but to be a member of the EU, they had to get rid of capital punishment. We do not believe capital punishment is acceptable anymore.

I know Mr. Gold is a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, so he knows that the UN takes human rights very seriously. I do not know much about the internal workings in Israel, as I only briefly visited a part of it. Are human rights a core part of the Israeli constitution? Are they debated a lot and are they part of Israel's laws? I always thought Israel had a formalised constitution, but I found out this morning that it has a basic law that was adopted by the Knesset in 1958. Therefore, it does not have a written constitution which sets out rights. We have rights inscribed into our Constitution. Can Mr. Gold give us some general background on rights based activity in Israel itself?

I welcome Mr. Gold, and I impress upon him what previous speakers have mentioned, which is that the expectation of a democratic state such as Israel is that human rights are upheld. We can see the knock-on effect for children in Iraq who were born subsequent to the use of phosphorous bombs. The infirmity that they must suffer is similar to the results of Agent Orange when it was used in Vietnam. Certain things have become unacceptable.

I understand where is Israel is coming from in respect of its neighbourhood and its difficulties with the proxy war waged by Hamas and its support by Iran. That is a concern for everybody, especially the Iranian attempts to enrich plutonium to the level of creating a bomb. That is not just a concern for neutral states like Ireland, but for all states. As an incoming member of the parliamentary assembly of the OSCE, I would raise that as one of the major threats to peace and stability in the region and in the wider world.

I impress upon Mr. Gold the need for Israel — above all, given its history — to be the country that upholds human rights the most. There was a disproportionate response and too many people have died in Gaza. The way they have been treated — they are in reality being used by a third country — is wrong. For a democratic state like Israel, which has such a fine tradition, I hope that it will look forward to ensure rights and the two state solution. We are too used to the politics of the last atrocity in Ireland, and it only helps if this is used as example of what not to do in the future. What happened in the West Bank with the settlements and what is currently being done in Gaza must be done better. Israel will not get peace until that is done properly, but I wish Israel well with its efforts in the peace talks and hope it has an open book as to where that peace might lead.

I welcome Mr. Gold to our committee and I thank him for his lucid presentation. I support the comments made by my colleagues on human rights and the conduct of Israel in certain areas. I have a strong, instinctive support for Mr. Gold's country because of its history, where it has come from and because of an appreciation of the environment within which it exists. However, over the last 12 to 18 months, the faith that I have in Israel has taken a knock because I expect more from a country that has come from where it has. My understanding of what has happened makes me feel that the expectations that I would have of Israel are being let down. Given the skill with which Mr. Gold has advocated his cause, and given that we all experienced the security and prosperity of his country, I wanted to take this opportunity to convey my point of view on what he said.

What is currently happening in Iran is of great concern to all of us. What does Mr. Gold think will evolve now on Iran and what does he think of the demands made by other countries on its nuclear capability? What is the solution to the ambitions that Iran appears to have outside of its own borders? How can that be managed in such a way that leads to the peaceful existence of Israel and to a two state solution? How can the foreign policy objectives coming out of Iran be peacefully managed?

I welcome Mr. Gold and thank him for his presentation. Much of what I wanted to say has already been said but I add my voice to that of some of my colleagues. The expectation from our perspective is that a nation such as Mr. Gold's would have a greater regard for the upholding of human rights, as has been identified.

From our perspective, we have seen a similar situation in this country, although not to the extent that Mr. Gold may view it as such. There is much to be learned from what has happened on the island of Ireland that Mr. Gold could look towards in terms of breaking that link towards looking back. His presentation was very helpful and informative but he seemed to be looking back rather than looking forward. He seems to take solace and credit, to some extent, for the things Israel has done right and seeks to justify its actions on the basis of the threat that existed for it. If that mindset continues, it simply fortifies people on all sides to remain within their current silo. Clearly, the various attempts that have been made to break the deadlock through successive interventions, particularly by the US and others, will fail if there is not a willingness to look to the future and to the benefits a peaceful solution will deliver.

I can understand that Israel, as with all sides in any conflict, seeks to justify its actions in order to protect its own image. However, it is impossible to retain respect for its actions when one considers the disproportionate response that resulted in the invasion of Gaza and the tremendous suffering that has been visited upon a group of people who are in a dire and desperate situation. The chance of them ever building any kind of a future is impossible while the current impasse continues. I would argue that Israel has a duty of care towards those people, recognising that there are elements within and outside that will seek to manipulate the situation in order to pose a threat to Israel.

The difficulties which Israel has had as a result of the rockets that have been fired into its territory are minor in comparison. I do not seek to in any way minimise the impact of those attacks but it is minor in return for what Israel has visited on others. While I assume it would argue it is a defensive position to protect its people, it cannot in any way be seen as proportionate to the risk that existed from its perspective. There is a dilemma for us as European citizens where a neighbourhood agreement exists which requires an expectation of a certain standard of care in terms of how one deals with such situations. I would assert that Israel is in breach of that neighbourhood agreement, which is obviously a matter for broader discussion.

It is not that I or any Parliament or Government here wants to pursue that agenda without some necessity behind it. It is a way of indicating to Israel that in return for the relationship and the association and participation it wants as part of that European fold, there is an expected standard to which it must adhere. While I am not minimising or undermining the threat Israel envisages or has undergone, or the conflict waged in its direction, it must still maintain a standard in how it deals with that. This is why international war crimes are identified, as well as courts to deal with such crimes and how they impact on humanity in a way that is not acceptable. I would want to see Israel make a better approach to developing its management of the situation that better adheres to what the European model is for dealing with such threats.

I hope Mr. Gold takes from the encounters this morning and this afternoon a willingness from an Irish perspective to assist in whatever way we can, and not in any way to impose a solution or try to tell Israel how to do its business, as we recognise this is entirely a matter for Israelis. However, we want to focus attention on the respect for basic human dignity and basic human rights, again, without seeking to tell Israel what human rights are from its perspective. I believe there is a basic set of norms that are understandable in every jurisdiction and every walk of humanity and, in my view, Israel has failed to date in maintaining that standard. I would hope that, through Mr. Gold's good offices, he may be able to instill a little more of a desire to reach that standard for the purpose of bringing about a peaceful solution.

Mr. Gold's presentation and the response from the members of the committee is an interesting contrast coming from two different points of view. He will agree that, from the expressions of the committee members, the committee and people in Ireland generally are friendly towards Israel and want to be friendly. However, what they are saying is that it is being made difficult to be friendly. We can understand the position of Israel quite well, it being in a hostile territory and surrounded by many hostile neighbours. When one is in that geographic position, one needs friends, and one needs to increase the number of friends as opposed to losing them.

Without wishing to suggest we have become experts on this overnight, because we have not, there are a few points that have a striking resemblance to the conflicts in, for example, the western Balkans and perhaps in Ireland. The first is propaganda. We have always noted, from whichever side it comes, the degree to which propaganda is referred to as if it were a proven fact, which we know is not the case. We know all about propaganda on this island of ours — we have been on both sides of that argument over the years, and on the receiving end as well as doing a fair amount of creation in that area.

The second point concerns the blame game, which goes back to every atrocity that ever happened. In this country, we can easily go back 800 or 900 years and pick out the individual atrocities for which we can blame various sides. The repeated visitation to those sites and scenes does absolutely nothing for the current situation and, in fact, leads in the opposite direction. The point to remember is that every time those sore points are revisited, it is as if they occurred all over again. That is the sad part about propaganda when it ties into the blame game.

My other point concerns the origins, which we have discussed here many times. Like many of my colleagues, I would have studied Israeli history more than any other history in that region. We learned much on the period from the foundation of the Israeli state right through to the present day, and we visited Israel on a number of occasions. There is a striking similarity between the propaganda on both sides today and the position when I visited there 30 years ago. This is something we in this island have learned all about, which is the sad part. That being what it is, the origins are based on history, tradition and all that goes with that, and we should learn from those things.

In the final analysis, however, we wish to be supportive and constructive in any way possible. We strongly support the need to uphold human rights at all times. It is sacrosanct. During our visit to the Middle East, Gaza and Israel last year, we had doubts about whether basic human rights were being observed in the way they should be in the current climate. This occurs at a time when positive and constructive engagement is necessary. Regarding Senator George Mitchell, we thought we knew all about our situation in this country and that anyone from outside, be they from the US, Canada or the UK could not enlighten us because we knew it all. We were wrong and I am glad to say we were wrong. I invite Mr. Gold to contribute, having heard disparate views from all sides on a common theme.

I do not have the amount of time I need to respond but I will do my best to be brief and to the point. One of the underlying themes raised was the commitment of Israel to human rights. I want to share a fundamental point about our history. The idea of advancing human rights at the end of Second World War was a subject dear to the Jewish people and therefore dear to the Jewish state. René Cassin, the French legal expert from an Orthodox Jewish background who has schools named after him in Israel, is the co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights along with Eleanor Roosevelt. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish expert, is the author of the Genocide Convention and coined the term genocide.

It would be useful for a UN member state to consider that when the President of Iran makes a statement that Israel should be wiped off the map, as said by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I was extremely disappointed by the reaction of the international community. The Genocide Convention from 1948 has a clause describing incitement to genocide as a war crime. It has been acted upon in the case of the Rwanda. Worldwide experts, led by Irwin Cotler, the former justice minister of Canada, have ascertained that the call to wipe Israel off the map is an incitement to genocide. The first thing that could have been done was a statement to that effect by the members of the UN. One of the most important things a member state of the UN could have done was to call for a convening of the UN Security Council to discuss the Iranian violation of the Genocide Convention. The Russians and the Chinese will not allow a resolution to be adopted on this but the fact that a European state would call for the convening of the UN Security Council on the issue of an incitement to genocide by the Iranian leadership would have a major impact. It would be perceived in Tehran as a failure of the Iranian president and the Supreme Leader. It would send a direct message that Europe will not suffer another genocidal threat against the Jewish people. It would be important for such a course of action to be followed. I know we are speaking about Israel today are not necessarily Iran, even though it was touched upon.

With regard to the Gaza War, Operation Cast Lead, on 5 November 2009 I was asked to debate with Mr. Richard Goldstone at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts. The debate was televised and was a significant event. I went through his report with a fine-tooth comb. This is not the place to go through my critique of the report but its principal charge was that Israel deliberately killed Palestinian civilians. That is untrue.

The fundamental dilemma of the Gaza War was that Israel had been under attack by Hamas rockets and other rockets from the Gaza Strip since 2001. That more Israelis did not die was a miracle. When the civilian population is under attack by rockets, one must respond. The real crime in the Gaza Strip is that Hamas made a decision to embed its military capabilities in the heart of its civilian population. They stored Qassam or Grad rockets in the homes of Palestinians, mosques or schools. They had launch points right next to civilian facilities.

This creates a dilemma for any country defending itself. One can follow the Russian model in Chechnya by levelling the whole area from which one is attacked. That is an option Israel refused to pursue. Another option is to do nothing and decide we can live with rocket attacks and that it is too bad for the Israeli people. Israel was not created to allow the people simply to be cannon fodder for terrorist organisations like Hamas. The third choice was adopted out of consideration for human rights, to find a way to separate the Palestinian civilian population from the military capabilities of Hamas.

How does one do so? Israel used warnings in this war. Other countries have done so and the dropping of leaflets goes back to the Second World War. Israel did certain things in this war that was only a reflection of its deep concern to adhere to human rights standards. This was not done to impress European Union but because these are our values. For example, Israel used electronic warfare methods to break into the radio broadcast of Hamas. Listening to the radio broadcast of Hamas, one would suddenly hear in Arabic that Israel is about to attack certain areas. That was not enough. Israel obtained the home phones and cell phones of owners of houses we believed were storing Hamas munitions and had to be destroyed along with munitions. I do not know of another army that did so. We put major intelligence resources into getting these phone numbers. We called people in Arabic and told them their homes were about to be destroyed. How do we know this is true? Members of Hamas and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip testified to this on television. We have recorded these appearances. If that was not enough, Israel would have an unmanned aerial vehicle over a house it was targeting. In the case where people received a phone call but did not move, thinking it would not happen, the Israeli artillery or air force would launch a non-lethal weapon on the roof of the house. This is known as the roof knocking. People realise the top of the house has been hit and that it is serious. Then they leave. The whole system was monitored and executed in order to save lives. It was not a perfect system and civilians died but not because it was the intent of Israel to kill them. Israel did what was possible to save lives.

Nations are not tested if they are New Zealand and do not face the threats Israel faces. Nations are really tested about their values when we have the situation Israel confronted. Did Israel do enough? No, it must always do more. It must learn that it must do more. Getting beyond the war of Operation Cast Lead, the Government of the Gaza Strip illegally seized an Israeli soldier who has been denied his fundamental human rights. I am talking about Gilad Shalit. The Gaza Strip is not a sealed-off area. It would be an inaccurate description to characterise the Gaza Strip in that way. First, we know there is trade to a value of approximately $1 billion between Gaza and Egypt. If someone wants a source for that statistic, I call attention to the 13 January 2010 edition of the Hamas newspaper, Al Risalah, from which I derived it. There was trade to the value of $1 billion in the previous year. For its part, Israel, within the framework of its own security concerns, has been allowing massive numbers of humanitarian trucks to bring goods of all kinds into the Gaza Strip. In 2009, 30,576 trucks passed through Israeli crossing points into the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip. In January and February this year 4,056 trucks passed through.

With regard to medical care, Israel is known to have very good hospitals. Hamas hospitals in Gaza are not the best place for Palestinians to receive care. I can share with the committee the fact that in 2009 Israel received 10,544 referrals from hospitals in hospitals and the people concerned received medical care in Israel. This is despite the fact that it is an enemy regime. If one reads the Hamas covenant, one will see this is a regime which calls for Israel's destruction and its public expressions since have become worse. I call the committee's attention to a name that members should know, Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas Member of Parliament. He is head of the Islamic law department of the Islamic University of Gaza and makes public statements calling for the genocide of the Jews. He is not a crazy guy at the edge of society; he is mainstream in Gaza. Even though that is the opponent and Israelis have cause to wonder the reasons we should provide medical services for an entity which is hostile to us and supports terrorism against us, we do so anyway. Do we receive credit for it in the international press? The answer is no. If the data were sent to The New York Times or The Times, would they receive attention? The answer is no. However, these are the facts and I suggest anyone interested in them should turn to the Israeli Embassy to receive all of this information which is released by our various military branches, the Prime Minister’s office and the Israeli foreign Ministry.

Perhaps ironically, I am touched by the committee's insistence that Israel adhere to human rights. That is where we come from and what Israel is about. The original founders and fathers of the International Criminal Court, ICC, included people such as Shabtai Rosen, one of the greatest legal minds in the state of Israel who was in our foreign Ministry. The negotiators of the ICC Rome treaty used to come to my office in New York when I was Israel's ambassador to the United Nations where we would speak about the protection of human rights as an Israeli and Jewish tradition. It is something that is embedded in us. However, when one is at war, maintaining human rights is not always simple. It is difficult, but we do it.

I want to share information on a case that occurred in one of our previous conflicts, Operation Defensive Shield, in the Jenin refugee camp. We had 22 soldiers involved in house to house combat to find the terrorists who had been spawning suicide bombings in the heart of our cities. They were killed in crossfire by Palestinians on roofs in a built-up area. They were all fathers and had families. Their wives asked the Israeli army why we had not used air power, artillery or flame throwers to destroy the place. They asked why they were widows. They are widows because among our basic values is the protection of human rights, even when we lose our own. That is what happened in Jenin in 2002. We were luckier in this military operation but we have the same values.

In the Israeli military legal system we have a judge advocate general at the head of the military justice system.

In different countries it works differently, which is why I am explaining. In the United States of America it is a divisional commander who orders in his unit an investigation of alleged war crimes. The judge advocate general is not appointed by the chief of staff of the Israeli army but by the defence Minister. We receive complaints from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Bethsalem and it is up to him to investigate them. If the judge advocate general of the Israeli army does not do his job and there is evidence that a hideous war crime occurred, we have civilian oversight of the Israeli military and it is the obligation of the attorney general of the state of Israel who is a civilian to investigate the allegations. If the attorney general is lazy or does not do his work, the Israeli Supreme Court has the authority to investigate allegations of war crimes. Is our system perfect? The answer is no, but it is far more robust and takes human rights considerations much more into account than others. Would it be easier if Israel was located in New Zealand? The answer is yes. Would it be easier if all we had to deal with were fish? The answer is also yes. However, we are obviously in a hostile neighbourhood that is involved in a struggle with us, not only about this or that metre of territory but also in which the leadership of a very powerful country calls for our elimination in statements that international legal authorities have said amount to incitement to engage in genocide.

The state of Israel, Tzahal — the IDF — will defend the people of Israel and will do what it can to address the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. However, the real tragedy is that the Gaza Strip is run by a government of Hamas, a terrorist entity. That is not only our definition; it is also the definition of the European Union and the United States. We have to alleviate the difficult conditions of the people of Gaza but we also have to address the rights of the state of Israel to peace and security in the region.

Many other questions were asked that I could address but I wanted to give the committee a flavour of a different perspective about which members will not read if they read much of the western press or hear if they watch the BBC or CNN. Please be involved. I understand their criticism through friendship, not as a statement of hostility because they have expectations that the Jewish people who delivered the ten commandments to western civilisation will behave in a certain way, which we do and always will.

These are offshore resources that were established. British Gas won the tender competition to develop the huge gas fields off Gaza. If the Hamas regime adopted the conditions the Quartet established, including the recognition of past agreements and a renunciation of violence, it could have an easy route to tap into these resources. Consider how many British officials have been trying to figure out how to get the revenues from the huge Gaza gas fields from which they have an enormous amount to benefit. That is a fact. According to the Oslo accords, the maritime areas off the Gaza Strip are under the jurisdiction of Israel. Arafat signed them. Nonetheless, as a sweetener to engage in negotiations, Ehud Barak allowed authority for the gas fields to be given to the Gaza authorities which at the time were the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. Some stated he had made a huge mistake and that it was a freebie, but it does not matter and they are there for them to develop. We could convert the Gaza Strip into a prosperous area if the political conditions changed rather rapidly. Unfortunately, we have a regime with the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood which calls for Israel's destruction, imports Iranian weapons and sends operatives to Tehran for training by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and then return through the tunnels. I wish it was better, but members should understand that is the reality we are facing.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have multiple channels of communication, albeit no negotiations, which include military to military talks. They have ways to communicate on a daily basis. The Gaza Strip is more complicated because Hamas calls for Israel's destruction and Israel does not recognise the Hamas regime. Obviously, however, we have sufficient co-ordination to allow 10,000 Palestinians to get medical care in Israeli hospitals in 2009, even though they came from that hideous area.