EU key to Middle East peace

Gerry Adams recently visited Israel and the Palestinian territories. In the second of two articles reflecting on that visit, he looks at how international assistance could bridge the gap between the two warring sides

The British mandate over Palestine ended in 1947 – the year of the UN partition plan. By 1948, alongside the mass expulsion of Palestinians, the state of Israel was established. These events have been at the core of the conflicts in the Middle East in the decades since then. The failure to resolve the issues involved guarantees the continuation of instability, violence and conflict in this region and economic and violent consequences beyond it.

During my recent visit there, I saw the effects of this at first hand. The peace process no longer exists. Israeli settlements holding hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens are dotted throughout Palestinian territories. The killings continue, sometimes on a daily basis. And the Israeli government is building a wall which will be over 660 kilometres long.

Despite the current tension and these deep-rooted difficulties, there remains the possibility of developing a solution. This requires an international focus which removes this conflict from the so-called war against terrorism and sees it for what it is; a failure of international diplomacy.

The ceasefire that came into force on 14 August on foot of diplomatic initiatives and the deployment of UN forces in southern Lebanon is proof of what can be achieved when the focus is right. The delay in getting international support for both the ceasefire and the expansion of these forces is a good example of what happens when the focus is wrong.

This column would argue that the Irish government needs to take a pro-active attitude to all of these matters in all the international forums available to it. The European Union in particular has a role to play. It needs to uphold the rule of law and to do so in clear and unequivocal terms. To assist this, the European Union needs to hold all parties accountable. The Irish government could promote various mechanisms to achieve this, including commissions of inquiry or investigative missions, as well as courts and other forums.

Government sanctions and boycotts should end. If there is a desire to get Hamas to change its policies, this will not be achieved through coercion or punishment. It needs dialogue. Engagement does not mean endorsement – it does signify respect and an acknowledgement of an opposite view.

For their part, the Palestinians need an agreed national platform. During my visit, representatives of all the factions assured me that there was such a national consensus. President Abbas told me he hoped a government of national unity would be established fairly quickly. Since then, the President and the Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya, have met and announced the formation of such a government. The Prime Minister is a member of Hamas, but all indications during my visit were that Hamas will accept President Abbas as a negotiator.

Since then, the effort to establish the new government has run into difficulties because of what appears to be an Israeli and US insistence that the new government accept three preconditions: recognition of Israel, renouncement of violence and an acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. But it is possible to come up with a platform which resolves these difficulties. President Abbas, at a meeting with President Bush at the UN last week, argued a softer stance which would allow talks to succeed.

There is an onus on the Israeli government to enter into meaningful dialogue with President Abbas. This will present a huge challenge to the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. Successive Israeli governments have argued that they do not have a partner on the Palestinian side. Bilateralism is what is required. Such a development requires a change in the strategic mindset of the Israeli establishment. To date, its approach has been guided by its massive firepower. This has created a sense of superiority. Such a notion prevents strategic thinking of the kind needed. It prevents putting yourself in your opponent's shoes. But as we know from our own process, putting yourself in your opponents shoes is exactly what is required.

This column believes that the future security, strategic interests, freedom and rights of the people of Israel are locked into an acceptance, respect, recognition and defence by Israel of the rights, freedom and prosperity of the people of Palestine.

War is not the only option. There must be a cessation of all hostilities, and freedom of movement for everyone. The agreement on movement and access (15 November 2005) must be fully implemented. The EU should ensure this. All funding should be restored to the Palestinian people, including the $500m in Palestinian tax and customs revenues held by the Israelis.

All of these measures will build confidence and an atmosphere for a return to the peace process. That process – and this is an understatement – must face many difficulties, including the release of all political prisoners. But the big challenge is to bring about a settlement on the basis of a two-state solution. This requires a sustainable and durable state for the Palestinian people in which they can share the region with their Israeli neighbours.