I tried to show Israel how we achieved peace ...all I got was a diplomatic war
DURING my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs, between 2004 and 2008, I travelled on two occasions to Jerusalem to meet my Israeli counterpart. On the first occasion, I met with the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom.
On the flight over to Jerusalem, I was advised by my officials that before my official duties started, I would be taken immediately from the airport to the Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem.
I was informed that it was a protocol requirement of the Israelis that any visiting dignitary, before they begin their formal itinerary, must first visit the museum, which depicts the suffering of Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany.
One could not fail to be moved to tears, witnessing in very graphic detail the appalling atrocities of the Second World War. I found it to be an incredibly moving experience, and one that has remained with me to this day.
Immediately after the visit, I was taken to the Foreign Ministry to meet Minister Shalom. I was barely seated in his office before he said to me: ‘My friends in Europe tell me that, around the EU table, Ireland is always against Israel. Why is this?’ To say the least, I was taken aback. Obviously, I countered by denying that this was the case.
Normally, these types of meetings are minutely planned by officials at the respective ministries, with the agenda agreed beforehand. However, on this occasion, I immediately realised that this was not going to be a normal diplomatic meeting.
The passage of time hasn’t dimmed my memory of the occasion. It descended into robust exchanges, from both sides.
HE was clearly coming from the viewpoint that Ireland was overly supportive of the Palestinian cause. I referred him to the fact that, over our history, we had very strong and articulate individuals from the Jewish community elected to our national parliament. The vast majority of the discussion revolved around the issue of how exactly they were expected to deal with terrorists who were hellbent on the destruction of Israel.
Naturally, I referred to the Irish experience of dealing with paramilitaries on our own shores, particularly pointing out that the British military system had struggled for decades to eradicate the IRA, and failed. I explained how constant efforts were made over decades, even in the darkest of times, to deal with anyone connected with the paramilitaries who showed a willingness to renounce violence as a means to achieve their aims.
I told him that our experience in Britain and Ireland was that ultimately both sides realised that an accommodation had to be reached, or else the spiral of violence would continue for generations. I instanced how some of the major events, such as Bloody Sunday, internment, and the hunger strikes, had the effect of turning ordinary civilians into extremely deadly terrorists.
I tried to explain how the Good Friday Agreement negotiations could become a template for a Middle East peace process. However, clearly nothing I said convinced him. In fact, as the meeting proceeded, it became more and more fraught. At one stage, he produced a document, with an English translation, which he called the charter of the Hamas organisation. He asked me to read out a particular article which stated that it was the duty of every Hamas member to fight for the destruction of Israel.
He challenged me as to how I, and others, expected Israel to sit down with people whose sole aim was to destroy them.
He clearly did not see the Irish peace process experience as one which could be replicated in the Middle East.
The meeting ended without any of the agreed agenda being discussed. I came away with the distinct impression that the Middle East conflict was not going to be easily solved.
I was reminded of the meeting, this week, by the sad and awful events which took place in Gaza.
The lack of efforts, at the present time, to promote peace negotiations leaves a dangerous vacuum.
As we have witnessed here in Ireland during the Troubles, any disproportionate use of military power merely becomes a recruiting tool for terrorist organisations.
This week’s events, and those leading up to it, can only make matters worse for the foreseeable future. Undoubtedly, there is fault on both sides, but the indiscriminate use of live ammunition against unarmed civilians is completely unjustifiable and unacceptable. The normally sedate proceedings of the UN Security Council were charged with claim and counterclaim. Any chance of resurrecting the bones of a Middle East peace process looks to be further away than ever.
For decades, the vast majority of UN member states have supported the so-called ‘two-state solution’, which envisages an independent state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. What has been in dispute, in this regard, is agreement on the exact boundaries of each state. New Israeli settlement building in disputed territory makes the two-state solution less and less realistic.
And yet, poll after poll suggests that large majorities of Palestinian and Israeli citizens are in favour in two-state solution. While it has always been accepted that the US has been more sympathetic to the Israeli cause, it has tended to support the two-state solution as a basis for peace negotiations.
HOWEVER, with the election of Donald Trump, there has been a clear shift in US policy in the Middle East to the benefit of Israeli interests. Most blatant of all was the decision by Trump to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Until this point, it had generally been understood that the issue of the capital city of Israel would be agreed as one element of an overall peace settlement. Claims by spokespersons for the US president that the opening of the embassy in Jerusalem had nothing to do with the violence this week look particularly hollow.
At the very least, the move has added fuel to a burning fire. Trump ignored the strong advice of friendly leaders in this regard. Again, against the wishes of many US allies, he ditched the Iranian nuclear deal, much to the delight of the Israeli government.
Predecessors of Trump, while supportive of Israel, have tended to try to seek negotiations, but Trump is different.
When he was first elected, many people felt that once the ‘permanent government’ within the US system got their hands on him, he would mellow in his views.
However, with his ‘you’re fired’ policy in dealing with officials who disagree with him, it’s unlikely there will be anyone surrounding him who will do anything other than his bidding. Trump is beginning to look even more divisive than some of us suspected when he was first elected.
A repeat of the horrific events of this week looks to be inevitable, unless the rest of the world’s leaders unite, through the UN, to resurrect the moribund peace process in the Middle East. Yet again, policy made on a ‘going it alone’ basis is a recipe for disaster.