asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the considerations which led the Government to conclude at this time, that recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation would best serve the interests of the Palestinian people in the assertion of their legitimate rights and aspirations.

15.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether in arriving at the decision to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Government sought and received an acceptable assurance that the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and its associated organisations, had abandoned involvement in international terrorism.

16.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether in arriving at the decision to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Government sought and received an acceptable assurance that the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and its associated organisation, had ended all contacts with the Provisional IRA and other terrorist groups in Ireland, and with Provisional Sinn Féin.

17.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in arriving at the decision to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Government sought and received an acceptable assurance that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had renounced those clauses of the Palestinian Covenant which call for the destruction of Israel, a state with which Ireland has diplomatic relations.

18.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in their recent deliberations on policy in relation to the Middle East, the Government had consultations with the Israeli authorities and whether they received any assurances as to Israel's willingness to reach an equitable agreement with the Palestinian people on the basis of UN Resolution 242.

19.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his recent statement on the Irish Government's attitude to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the context of a MiddleEast settlement reflects the result of his discussions during his recent visit to Arab countries, if he has satisfied himself that his statement assists the cause of peace in the region, and if he will outline the general principles of the Government's approach to peace in the region.

20.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline Ireland's position on Palestinian claims to the establishment of an independent state in Palestine, with particular reference to the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in representing the Palestinian people and to the withdrawl of Israel from all territory occupied since the 1967 conflict including Jerusalem and if he will indicate (a) whether Ireland supports the establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state or a Palestinian homeland with less than full sovereign status, (b) whether such support is unequivocal or is dependent on an acceptance by the Palestinians of the territorial integrity of the State of Israel and/or other factors, (c) whether recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation is dependent on a declaration of the right of the State of Israel to exist and the integrity and security of that State and/or other factors, (d) Ireland's policy on the future of the city of Jerusalem, and (e) whether the joint communique issued in Bahrein on 10 February 1980, fully and accurately represents the policy of the Irish Government in all its aspects.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 to 20, inclusive, together.

The communique issued after my discussions with the Foreign Minister of Bahrein on 10 February states that:

The two sides stressed that all parties, including the PLO, should play a full role in the negotiations for a comprehensive peace settlement. In this regard, Ireland recognises the role of the PLO in representing the Palestinian people.

Copies of the communique have been placed in the Library of the House.

Government policy towards the Middle East is based on our conviction that it is necessary that there should be a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement to the problems of the region. We believe that such a settlement must be based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, applied in all their parts and on all fronts and also on the principles set out by the nine EEC countries on several occasions in recent years.

These principles are as follows:

(i) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force

(ii) the need for Israel to end the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967

(iii) respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries

(iv) recognition that in the establishment of a just and lasting peace account must be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

I would like to emphasise that our policy remains firmly based on these principles, which must be taken as a whole. We believe that they should be accepted by all parties as the basis for a negotiated settlement. What was stated in the Bahrein communique was simply a logical development of this position, expanding but not supplanting it.

In particular, we expressed the view that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians include their right to self-determination of their right, should they wish to exercise it, to an independent state. This would, of course, be within the framework of a negotiated settlement in which all parties, naturally including Israel, would participate fully. These rights of the Palestinians are therefore not unqualified; there is a conflict of rights in the present situation which must be reconciled in the context of a negotiated settlement.

If a comprehensive settlement is to be worked out, it is clear that all concerned must participate in the negotiation. This includes the Palestinians. It is our view that the Palestinians should have the right to decide for themselves those who will represent them in such negotiations. In this regard the Palestine Liberation Organisation appears to enjoy the support of a very substantial proportion of Palestinians, both among the refugees and in the occupied territories. It is also accepted by the Arab states as the legitimate spokesman of the Palestinians.

We recognise therefore that the PLO is indeed an important element and should have a role to play. That is why we stated in the Bahrein communique that we recognise the role of the PLO in representing the Palestinian people.

I would like to make it clear that the Irish Government totally condemn all acts of violence from whatever source they may emanate and consider that such acts are an obstacle to the effort to negotiate a peace settlement which would meet the legitimate rights of all parties. In the contacts we have had with the PLO, we have used every opportunity to express this point of view and to impress upon them also the necessity of accepting the existence of the State of Israel. In this regard, we have received assurances from the PLO that they maintain no links with the IRA. Likewise we have made use of our regular meetings with representatives of the Israeli Government to impress upon them to need to negotiate with the representatives of the Palestinian people and to recognise their legitimate rights.

What is now required in our view is that the willingness to abandon violence in favour of political means which has characterised many groupings and leaders within the PLO should be encouraged; and we would hope that it might be possible through a process of gradual acceptance on both sides for Isreal and the PLO each to acknowledge a role for the other in the negotiation of a settlement. We believe that this would contribute immeasurably towards the achievement of a peaceful and comprehensive solution.

With regard to the question of Jerusalem, the Government recognise the central importance of this issue and the importance of the city itself as a Holy City to three great religions—— Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We are aware of the various claims made to Jerusalem and we certainly have no wish to see a city which is an important centre of religious faith for many peoples divided between them in a way which promotes confrontation.

We believe, therefore, that a special effort will have to be made as part of any negotiation—whether at the outset, during the negotiation or at the end—to negotiate an acceptable status for Jerusalem. In our view this should at a minimum allow all parties access to the places which they consider holy.

We cannot accept, however, pending this settlement, that unilateral efforts should be made to change the status of Jerusalem or to annex it following occupation. This was made clear in Minister O'Kennedy's speech on behalf of the Nine to the United Nations on 25 September last. We look instead to a settlement of the Jerusalem issue which might perhaps be on the basis of an open city and which could make it a symbol of peace in a region which is now one of conflict and confrontation.