We are here to discuss peace building in the Middle East and beyond and to begin a reflection on Ireland's peace process. With the permission of the committee, I would like to very briefly set the context for this discussion. On 8 February, I was invited to attend the peace proms in the RDS. As many here will know, it is a music education resource which involves and brings the magic of music to almost 35,000 children in 700 primary schools on this island, the centrepiece of which is a truly impressive cross-Border youth orchestra and performing choirs. The message of the music and singers is peace and the peace proms emerged from the Good Friday Agreement as a cross-Border initiative. Over 20 years later it is quite simply awe inspiring as an achievement, never mind as a stunning performance event. I mention it today because it is both a symbolic and real legacy of how peace can transform a place and people.

It is now our reality on this island that deep divisions and mistrust are mediated through democratic institutions, frameworks and dialogue rather than by violence, coercion and division. Is it complete? No. Is it a work in progress? Absolutely. All those who had the courage and energy to initiate, become part of and ultimately sustain the process came to share the understanding that an imperfect peace is better than no peace at all.

As Chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I believe that our peace process is an achievement that others around the world are interested in and want to learn from. Over the intervening period, people have wanted to learn from it. This cross-party committee membership shares that view. We are about to learn from the men and women who built our peace process what exactly it might be able to offer others who are mired in generational conflict, without at all taking for granted that our peace is not invulnerable and is always in need of building and nurturing. Our committee is beginning to embark on that exploration not of how we built this peace but how we can share its efficacy with others.

Just last week, I met one of the women architects of our peace process, Kate Fearon, a founder member of the Northern Ireland women's coalition and now director of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's conflict prevention centre in Vienna. We learned of how young women peacebuilders from Kosovo and Serbia have been brought to Northern Ireland over the past decade to learn about the critical role of women in building peace. That group of peacebuilders now has alumni comprising 200 graduates, as it were, funded by the Irish Government.

I believe there is a serious opportunity, with the support of the Government and other international partners, to institutionalise our lived peace experience into a global centre for conflict resolution. That is why we are here today - to begin the exploration, during the lifetime of this Parliament, of how that might be done; to listen to the voices of the women and men who were so close to the making and sustaining of our own process; to institutionalise the memory of those who contributed and have now passed; and, most particularly, to remember those who lost their lives during that conflict.

I welcome today our first witnesses: the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and the former Sinn Féin President, Gerry Adams. We will hear their opening statements followed by questions and answers with the members of the committee. I ask members to be concise in their questions to allow all members the opportunity to participate. I now invite our witnesses to make their opening statements. We will begin with Mr. Ahern, followed by Mr. Adams.

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators, Gerry Adams and the committee officials. I will begin my remarks by expressing my appreciation for the invitation to come and speak on the theme of peacebuilding though dialogue and negotiation in a more fractured world than the one we found ourselves in a few years ago, especially in the Middle East. I know the committee mentioned that in our letter to us. I wish the committee well in its deliberations over the weeks ahead as it meets colleagues who worked with us for so many years.

I would like to commence my remarks, of course, with the usual health warning that what I have to say about my experiences is just that - my experiences. It should always be borne in mind that no two conflicts are the same. However, we have examples of how we solved problems, overcame obstacles and created opportunities to end violence and engage in the patient work of sustaining a peace process through periods of difficulty as well as progress.

As I now have the advantage of almost 28 years of perspective in looking back at the events of 1998, it is important to look back even further to appreciate the scale of what was achieved by everyone who worked towards the agreement. The years from the seventies to the nineties were bleak and devastating for those who were directly or indirectly impacted by the Troubles and the violence. It is hard for current generations of people in their early 30s to imagine an environment where violence and the threat of violence permeated almost every aspect of life in Northern Ireland and to a different degree south of the Border. While we would have all hoped that the darkness of that period could have been avoided, it nevertheless coincided with the development by both Governments of what I like to describe as and ever deeper and shared understanding of the problem that we had to face and ultimately resolve. A former Irish diplomat, Noel Dorr, described it well when he called the period of progress and setbacks a "series of successive approximations" towards the agreement we reached in 1998. In this context, we have always been learning from what had failed to deliver progress towards an agreement and what had delivered incremental movement towards an end to violence and a framework that would create the conditions for an inclusive peace process.

In 1993, my predecessor, Albert Reynolds, in the Downing Street Declaration, had created a set of principles upon which the process of achieving peace could be predicated. Principles included the creation of an inclusive process including all parties that were committed to non-violence. It was for the people of Ireland to exercise their right to self-determination but with the balanced provision that the right would also include the right of the people of Northern Ireland to give their consent as to any future constitutional change or arrangements. The declaration spoke of the commitment by both Governments to create structures and institutions that reflected the diversity of identities on the island and beyond. It underscored the importance of addressing these issues in the context of the totality of relationships, a concept that was first spoken of by a predecessor, Charles Haughey, back in 1980.

With the Downing Street Declaration unveiled, the way was now clear to use this context as an assurance to republicans and loyalists, nationalists and unionists that an alternative process was now available for the first time to address in the most comprehensive way the challenges that had undone previous efforts at a solution. When I was elected Taoiseach in the summer of 1997, the August 1994 ceasefire had broken down since February 1996 and despite numerous efforts to get it restored, none proved successful. This is an experience that, perhaps, is not well understood or appreciated; in any process of conflict resolution, things are going to go wrong, including disputes within organisations and political parties. The challenge for democratically elected governments is how you ensure the continuance of a process so that it does not become a hostage of the last atrocity, while at the same time, not creating a sense of action with impunity by those who would deliberately disrupt or derail efforts at peace. For these questions, there is only one’s judgment to be applied, ensuring that on the balance of probabilities, pursuing the process is matched by a focus that prevents disrupters from inflicting damage or harm on the public.

The ceasefire was restored in July 1997 and by September, parties had signed up to the Mitchell principles of non-violence. This was an important moment, as we would now for the first time have the representatives of almost all strands of political opinion inside a process designed to achieve an agreement. Once we were into the talks of Holy Week, there was enormous pressure on all concerned to achieve the kind of deal that would reflect the needs and interests of all who were present, and would strike the kind of balances that were set out in the principles of the Downing Street Declaration. I sought to strike, in my work, the finest of balances between the twin concepts of union and unity in one moment and accept the tensions between the two aspirations within the three strands of the Good Friday Agreement. I was keenly aware, of course, that nationalists wanted to achieve the expression of national self-determination. I had to balance this with the requirement that unionists would only agree to this expression if it was regulated by the principle of consent that acknowledged the right of the people of Northern Ireland to express their own wish on any future constitutional change.

In 1998, both parts of the island voted for the Good Friday Agreement, which left Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, however, with the option that nationalists who wished to achieve a change in constitutional status could do so through the persuasion of their unionist neighbours through democratic and peaceful means. In the same spirit, unionists wishing to see the maintenance of the union in circumstances where their electoral position might change vis-à-vis nationalists would be required to persuade their nationalist neighbours of the advantages of the union in a spirit of persuasion and democracy.

A key challenge I have discovered in the aftermath of any conflict, or indeed any agreement designed to bring a permanent end to violence, is the challenge of implementation; in this case, the question of how to set in place the structures and architecture of what was signed in the Good Friday Agreement.

We worked for many years, spending entire weeks on details that were either deliberately misconstrued by talk participants or because they proved politically unpalatable in the wake of the agreement in terms of what their communities could absorb. The impact, however, was profound, whether in the areas of weapons, prisoners, policing, security, victims of the conflict, or flags and emblems, including cultural issues like parades and language. All of these issues proved difficult at different times during the implementation of the agreement, and all in their own way were not challenges in themselves. However, they became emblematic of the absence of trust between the parties, who were now tasked with selling the compromises on some significant key issues for their respective communities.

Today, the world is riven with conflict, and we see the horrors of war in Ukraine, Gaza, Haiti, Sudan, west Cameroon, Myanmar, India-Pakistan, Syria and a host of other places, totalling, I think, 27. Drug wars in places like South America and Mexico take countless thousands of lives every year as drug lords seek to control territory and markets for their odious products, leaving all the trauma of such violence in their wake.

Many people ask what lessons have been learned over my years involved in the Irish peace process and how such lessons may be relevant to the world today. It is hard to answer about such lessons directly. However, without a commitment to a process that leads to and develops a shared understanding of what the problem is, then it is virtually impossible to create a process, let alone an agreement, that can lead to an end of a conflict. There are also the issues of timing and the moment when a critical minimum of actors - not a majority - emerges, willing to envision a post-conflict environment that focuses on their interests and those of their communities into the future.

At my stage of life, I do a lot of thinking about the lessons I have gleaned over many decades of living. One observation I have settled on about the nature of conflict, both our own in Ireland and scanning others around the world, is that there is no sustainable solution in an obsessive focus on victory. Yes, an immediate battle or campaign may be won in the conventional sense, that one side may prevail over the other in that particular moment, but in a pyrrhic victory, nothing is actually settled. The new seeds of the next phase are already sown and it is only a matter of time before the next outbreak erupts. That is what history teaches us. In my view and in my experience, real peace and reconciliation take root when the leaderships on both sides of a conflict accept that the only outcome that will be sustainable in the longer term is one involving compromise and accommodation.

As a former Taoiseach and party leader, I am only too acutely aware that this is a very hard message to deliver, not just to your opponents across the political divide, but to your own side. As human beings, especially those of us who are deeply immersed in the world of politics, it appears that we are genetically programmed to be deeply passionate about our own political beliefs and our view that they must prevail in all their purity. If those engaged in situations of conflict are not prepared to embrace compromise and accommodation and the reality that there must also be an honourable outcome involved for the other side, then I can show a situation that cannot be resolved. I am also all too conscious that such a course is going to involve complexities and messiness. The clean, simple lines of purist doctrine are not available. Instead, the path ahead is marked by ambiguities and the constant need for flexibility and pragmatism, but the rewards are far-reaching and profound.

I look forward to answering questions, particularly on the Middle East and other conflicts.

Tá mé an-shásta Bertie Ahern a fheiceáil agus an t-ambasadóir, an Dr. Jilan Abdalmajid, fosta. Tá mé buíoch de bhaill an choiste as an deis atá agam labhairt faoin ábhar an-tábhachtach seo. Mar a dúirt Bertie, nuair atáimid ag amharc ar an domhan, feicfimid go bhfuil rudaí millteanach dona ina lán áiteanna. Níl rudaí sa tír s'againnse perfect ach tá sé níos fearr na mar a bhí sé ariamh, nó níos fearr ná mar atá sé in áiteanna eile. Rinne Bertie sárobair i rith an phróisis sin.

The Irish peace process and the Good Friday Agreement were years in the making. At the heart of the process was the primacy of the UN Charter, which established the foundation of international law, including the right to self-determination, alongside the imperatives of inclusive dialogue, respect, equality and justice. In the course of the conflict, there were other initiatives that failed because they were not inclusive and did not address the causes of conflict. They were essentially about defending and protecting the status quo. In many cases, the British Government, aided at times by the Irish Government, put forward propositions based on this premise and presented them disingenuously as peacemaking.

Sinn Féin argued for all-party talks and for Irish self-determination, alongside a rights-based approach to issues from policing and justice to equality and an end to discrimination. Others, most notably John Hume and Fianna Fáil, took up similar positions. That is what made the difference in the Irish peace process. If we want to look at what we need to do in the Middle East, it has to be based upon those broad fundamentals. That, and eventually the positive engagement of the international community, especially Irish America and the Clinton Administration, made the difference.

Inclusive dialogue is the only way a genuine peace process can be achieved in the Middle East. That has to be based on the right to self-determination of the people of Palestine. Adherence to the UN Charter is paramount and international law must be upheld. The Israeli state's genocidal occupation of the Gaza Strip and its recent moves to effectively annex the West Bank are clear evidence that it is determined to ignore international law, including reams of UN resolutions, the rulings of the International Court of Justice and the decisions of the International Criminal Court.

We have all seen the two-state solution and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination being torn up. The international protections and legal systems that should be shielding the Palestinian people from genocide have been broken, ignored and discarded. This needs to be reversed. Some western governments have refused to stand against Israeli occupation and instead they have actively supported it with armaments and other measures. This needs to stop.

The Irish Government can play a leadership role by encouraging international opposition to the Israeli state's illegal actions, calling for and contributing to humanitarian aid, and seeking a genuine process of inclusive dialogue, under the auspices of the United Nations, that seeks to agree solutions. The worldwide protests against genocide in the Middle East have created huge solidarity for justice and for peace. That needs to be utilised in the time ahead to influence popular and political opinion, as well as exerting political pressure through boycotts, sanctions and divestments.

For the Palestinian people, there is a huge challenge. For their political leaders in particular, there is one big challenge. There is a need for an alternative approach, and that must be about unifying the Palestinian people and the Palestinian struggle. It means uniting behind a single focused strategy, with clear end goals, and a united leadership speaking with one voice. Efforts in the past have failed to achieve this but I believe the future of the Palestinian people is now at an historic crossroads.

National unity - unity of action, unity of politics and unity of leadership - for the Palestinian people is now needed more than at any time since the Nakba in 1948.

Israel is also at an historic crossroads. Today, after two and a half years of genocide, the demolition of Gaza City and the Gaza Strip and the intensification of annexation and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, is Israel’s security any better than it was before this? Is it any better and is Israel any more secure? Its military adventures into Syria and south Lebanon and its attacks on Iran and Qatar have made the situation worse.

We know from our own experience that peace will never be achieved through security and military means. Critically, 5 million Palestinians are living under occupation on land that Israel covets, and they are not going away. They are there. It is their homeland and their home place. They live there under dire conditions. What do we do with them? That is the conundrum for all of us who want to see peace in that region. The peace committee set up by President Trump does not represent them. In fact, they are excluded from it. It will not bring about a just peace. Refusing to engage in dialogue, demonising opponents, treating them as non-citizens, stripping them of their rights and entitlements, of their self-esteem and integrity as human beings, and engaging in censorship and vilification makes war easier and peace harder.

A political settlement is required. The present status quo will not bring that about. It will only be possible if there is a recognition and acceptance of the democratic mandates of all of the participants and if all sides keep to their obligations. Inclusive dialogue is central to that. There also needs to be a good faith involvement by the international community. We need another start in the Middle East and the approach of the international community has to change. There is a duty to comply with the requirements of the UN Charter and, on that basis, help to create the political conditions in which that inclusive dialogue can happen.

Ireland, and the political leadership here, needs to play a leadership role in this, including by the Government urgently delivering the occupied territories Bill and the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023. As a matter of urgency, Palestinian leaders must set aside their differences and unite behind national demands. It is not for me to set out those demands, but obviously they have be based on the Palestinians' right to freedom and must include the need for an inclusive process of negotiations to commence as soon as possible, in which all democratic mandates are respected and where clear objectives are set and there is a fixed timeframe.

Sin é. B’fhéidir, nuair a bheimid ag glacadh ceisteanna, go mbeidh díospóireacht faoi na rudaí seo. Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach.

Before going to our members, I welcome the Palestinian ambassador, Dr. Jilan Abdalmajid. I call Deputy Duncan Smith.

I thank Mr. Ahern and Mr. Adams. I am sorry I was not here for the start of their contributions. I was speaking in the Chamber, but I read their written submissions prior to the meeting.

The history of the peace process in the North is a success attributable to the power of dialogue. An awful lot of that dialogue took place around the table. An awful lot of it also took place in secret, in highly sensitive discussions that took place over many years. In terms of lessons to be learned from that in the context of delicate backchannel negotiations, Mr. Adams was depicted throughout the course of the Troubles as both a political leader and as someone with close links to an armed organisation. An awful lot of governments in the West refuse to engage with Hamas, for example, in Palestine. Does Mr. Adams believe that governments refusing to engage in talks with such organisations are making a strategic mistake on the path to peace and what advice would he have for governments and leaders in relation to engaging with all sides in the conflict?

Well, they talk to them when it suits them. The Americans have talked to Hamas in recent times. Those might be close-proximity talks or in another room, but they do it. I can think of many ways of bringing about peace, but telling someone they are not worthy to be talked to is not one of them. I do not think we can choose the representatives of the Irish Government except to accept what the people decide. We cannot choose the President of the United States of America. That is up to the people there. We cannot choose the representatives of, in this case, the Palestinian people. That is up to the people there to decide. There should be engagement. When we talk about inclusive dialogue, we mean it. It should involve all the folks who are there with a mandate. No one has the right to exclude anybody else and no one has the right to exclude items from the agenda. The committee members will know themselves that an agenda can be put together but it will not necessarily mean anything other than at some point in the clár there will be a discussion of the item that is down. All the issues that people think are important should be there, and if some of them are frivolous, distractions or not central, that will be exposed fairly quickly.

I will make one wee point. During the Good Friday Agreement negotiations, as opposed to all the other different talks, negotiations and outreach that went on in the years before it, the unionists never talked to Sinn Féin. The DUP walked out when we walked in. The Ulster Unionist Party refused to talk. I remember that at an event in Stormont recently we were all asked what regrets we had, and Peter Robinson said he regretted not starting talking earlier. There is a big lesson in that.

The short answer to the Deputy’s question is inclusive dialogue. If people do not want to come, that is up to themselves, but invite everyone with a mandate and listen respectfully to them. I thank the Deputy for the question.

I thank Mr. Adams for his answer.

Turning to Mr. Ahern, is it possible to get across just how central the United States was to the peace process in the mid-to-late 1990s? Was that country seen, for want of a better phrase, as an honest broker? How would Mr. Ahern compare the United States then to the power structure that exists in the United States now and how it is operating in trying to achieve peace in Israel and Palestine?

I think the difficulty with the whole conflict in Israel and Palestine is that the United States, whether the Biden Administration or the Trump Administration, is not open. Mr. Adams and I have both said that the success of our process was in how it was comprehensive, where everything was in and everything was on the table, and inclusive. We have both participated in many debates about different conflicts, but it always seems to me that the most effective way to try to make some progress on the conflict in Palestine and Israel is through a balanced process that equalises the rights of Palestinians and Israelis. I think this means that there must be a commitment to delivering an overly balanced outcome that contains equal degrees of self-determination, security and statehood for the people of both Israel and Palestine. I do not hear the Americans articulating that.

In my view, and I do not claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but past efforts failed because, ultimately, the Palestinian side was not offered actual statehood or self-determination.

In the aftermath of the current war in Gaza, I think a reversion to that imbalanced approach is not going to work either. I was looking back just last night and while I still remember the 1967 war, not too many of the people present probably do. It was in 1976 that the PLO first supported a draft UN General Council resolution on two states, a long time ago. Then there was the Madrid process in 1991, as well as the Abraham Accords, which we are still hearing a lot about. There was even talks in Moscow in 1992. There were the Oslo Accords that were going on in 1993 and 1995, when we were working on the early years of it. Then there was Camp David when Bill Clinton was dealing with it. As Gerry Adams has said, in our case there were efforts before. It does not seem, however, as if the agenda the Americans are putting on the table has learned much from all the ones that have gone on since 1976. To be quite frank, you are going to get the same answer if you do not learn any lessons along the way.

Some of the contributions made me think. We discussed how the approach of the international community needs to change when it comes to Palestine, and the idea of being a good-faith actor, both in respect of actors engaged in the conflict and the international community. So much of Mr. Ahern's and Mr. Adams's statements and so much of the history of the North points to the importance of political buy-in and how important the international community was in the case of the North. There was political buy-in on the part of the international community for pushing a peace process. In the context of the Middle East, there will be no military solution that will lead to peace, first and foremost. The lesson from the North is that these intractable conflicts will not be resolved through force and they need to be negotiated through democratic means, through dialogue and people coming to the table having those opportunities. Linked to that is the importance of the political will and the political support behind it.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has said previously that, for example, settlements in occupied Palestine are an obstacle to peace. That was linked to the Oslo Accords and all the negotiations that happened around that. I worked a lot in peace-building and worked in Gaza prior to entering politics. I am very conscious of the fact that violence is cyclical such as, for example, the atrocities that we saw from Hamas in October 2023. It is hard to imagine that is ever going to lead to more peace, as well as all of the tens of thousands of people we have seen killed after that. It is hard to imagine how you can get from that to peace when violence is a cyclical thing. The reason I raise this is that for decades, we saw Palestinian peace activists really trying their best, bringing cases to the ICC, the UN and the ICJ. So much of their messaging seemed to fall on deaf ears. There really was not the political will. Obviously, all focus turned back to Gaza after October 2023 but they had been forgotten for so long. Palestinians saw attempts, for example 18 months before October 2023 there was the great march to Gaza, a huge peace march, and around 200 Palestinians were killed by snipers during that. It is hard for Palestinians to see a pathway to peace because their attempts to engage peacefully have not been supported internationally. Then we see the cyclical violence, tens of thousands of being killed. We see a genocide and we wonder what that means for the next generation. Will they have faith? Will they see the international community as good-faith actors or will they never trust the international community again because every time they have attempted to seek its support they have been ignored? That is true as well for Israeli peace activists who have done a huge amount. There was a woman whose name I now forget but she was involved in Breaking the Silence, an Israeli peace group. She was killed on 7 October by Hamas and would have been horrified by everything that has happened since.

The reason I am mentioning this is to hear from the witnesses what they think about why the support of the international community is so important. The ICC, for example, has now come under complete attack although it is just trying to uphold international law. It is not being supported by the international community. Statements do not mean anything because they do not change the facts on the ground. Us saying that the settlements are an obstacle to peace does not change the fact that the settlements have tripled since the 1990s and the Oslo Accords. What is the piece there that we need to be achieving? How can Ireland lead on that from the international piece? I am thinking as well about things like divesting from Israel, and the occupied territories Bill. I actually see that as a tool of peace because it is saying to the Palestinians that we stand with them, we see international law being broken and we will not do anything that will lead to the continuation of those settlements. That was a bit of a long-winded question.

The way we operate here is within time, so the witnesses have about three minutes between them here but we will have a second round. It is just to ensure that everybody gets in twice.

Let me give an example. It sounds as if I am casting up but I am just giving an example. A motion was passed in the Oireachtas in December 2014 for the Government to recognise the State of Palestine. The Government refused to act on that mandate from the Oireachtas. Every time it was raised by me and other Teachtaí Dála we were told to wait, we were trying to get Europe to act and get somebody else to pick this up as well. It never happened until after the calamity we have all witnessed. Imagine, had the Government recognised the State of Palestine, the message that would have sent out to the world and the ability of other states then to come in and support that type of position. I endorse fully the Senator's proposition that there are initiatives and actions that can be taken which are peace actions and peace initiatives. I am just giving that as an example. Would the course of history had been different if Ireland had taken a leadership role on that, as it was mandated to do by the Parliament of the people?

I do not disagree with anything the Senator has said. She and I have mentioned some of the efforts that have been made over the years and all of the tragedies. Unfortunately they have happened now and we cannot reverse them. Of course we all condemn what happened in 2014 and 2015, and what happened in October 2023. Now there has to be a new effort. The big challenge is what that new effort is going to be and how we start pulling that together again. Of course there are European countries that take a very different view from what we have taken. We understand that. We do not like it but that is the way it has been for the last few years. I agree totally with what Gerry said earlier on that there has to be a unified political position. If we keep on going the way it is at the moment, I do not want to say anything personal about any of the leaders but if we keep on going that road, it is a road to nowhere. That is a debate within the Palestinian people. It is crucial. As I see it, and it goes back to our own position and to every other conflict, if people are happy with the status quo, then you get nowhere. If Gerry Adams and his colleagues had taken the view that the status quo was fine, and if others had taken the same view, then we would still be killing one another. They took a different view that you have to get a new position. I think that is almost the first thing the Palestinian people need to be doing now. The second thing is to try to win more support.

It is regrettable and I was a strong supporter of that march.

I was there with Oliver McTernan and his group at that time. It seemed like the right thing to do. I know they were taking hits for that but it was still the right thing to do and then others decided otherwise. I totally accept that, regrettably, they were not getting the international support. I thought a lot of people would sign up and say, “Here they are”, and see that they were trying a civil rights kind of movement and moving to equality, or what we called parity of esteem back in the day.

To summarise, and to answer the question, I think we need a new initiative now. We need the Palestinians to get their house in the order and we need to try to win the support of people who have been reluctant to be helpful about a two-state solution, or whatever that means now because, as we know, there are different views coming out of Palestine. These are building blocks that need to happen. Of course, I am not too sure what the American initiative will bring. We will just have to sit on our hands and watch that for the next few months.

I thank both speakers. Building on the points that were made, we do not want to repeat the past, but as one of the original co-sponsors of the occupied territories Bill in 2017, I often reflect on what would have happened if Ireland had been moving ahead at that point in saying that we were applying international law. Of course, it was not a response to Gaza because it predated it. Even the ICJ judgment was simply a confirmation of what we knew in 2017 in relation to the breaches of self-determination and occupation. If Ireland and others had pushed and taken action then, and created that pressure for other countries, we would have had, no doubt, a huge political fight and, potentially, a huge legal fight would have followed that. However, we would have been having that debate, and Israel would have been active in the political sphere in having to really engage. Instead, we had a kind of silence and inaction that did not just allow the status quo to continue but allowed it to deepen and deepen.

I would appreciate a comment on things like the occupied territories Bill. Do we risk missing yet another window if we do not say now, at this new point and potential turning point that has been described, that our view is that the piece that comes now should be within the context of international law? The witnesses could also comment on the importance of the role of women and civil society. When I look at things like this Board of Peace that was mentioned, I worry that we are moving towards an older version of peace, which is really conquest, or, effectively, defeat and a deal of some kind, but it is not peace building. Does Ireland need to be asserting and pressing our colleagues in Europe on what the actual building blocks of peace are, uncomfortable as they may be, including the role of civil society and women, and including the idea of international law applying to everybody and being applied by those around this?

Another question I might ask at this point concerns the ongoing work of peace. I would appreciate a comment on social cohesion funding. We are seeing a time where the language of war is very prominent and the language of peace is diminished. We are seeing a lot of the narrative of security and defence expenditure, for example, but we are seeing some of that money being taken directly from things like social cohesion funding, which was important in Ireland and Northern Ireland. I would appreciate a comment on how the witnesses felt about things like, for example, building the choirs and building the connections that allowed peace to embed.

That is a set of questions. I would appreciate a response on the international law piece, including the ICC, the ICJ and others. Does Ireland push a different picture of what peace building should be and challenge others on that, if necessary?

I thank the Senator for the observations. I think the occupied territories Bill needs to be urgently passed. It is a matter of urgency, and not just the occupied territories Bill but also the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill. It is a no-brainer. Why would you not do it, particularly as the Government promised to do it in the election that led to it being in government?

There is more work to be done in Ireland on our own peace process. I will not take up the time here, but there are elements of the Good Friday Agreement that have not been implemented. The Government has a hands-off view - An Taoiseach in particular - on the essential necessity of a referendum, planning for that and so on. They all sustain the peace. People will be patient and know it might take years to do it but if nobody is actually working on it, nobody is trying to make progress.

I have not been in the Middle East in some years, but I was there quite a few times. I cannot imagine how terrible it is. I am in regular contact, sometimes in daily contact, with activists, particularly in the West Bank. It is just deplorable. Everything that we can do to uphold international law should be done - every sinew that the Government has, every outlet, every channel. How can you argue against international law? How can a government not stand up and say that the separation wall, the genocide and the occupation are all in direct breach?

Then there is all of the necessary work. A lot of the money that was going into Gaza, in particular, was going in through the Israelis. I did not twig that for ages. The money coming in from international funds was not going directly to the Palestinian people but was being filtered in through Israeli structures. There are very basic things that can be done.

On the question of international law and following international law to the nth degree, I agree totally. I do not know of individual measures. I have not followed all of the debates in here as closely as I would have at one time. As far as international law goes, I can tell the Senator that I have been out and about in a lot of conflict zones in recent months. The Irish position, and our support for the Palestinian people, is strongly known and stands out. It is only when you meet in other countries, in delegations and in parliaments, that you see that our position stands out. I do not think it is an issue for being proud for, but it is an issue that we should at least note. I know that in the Houses where members are working, they have made sure that question is known.

What worries me is where this is all going in the short term. The conflict is kind of stalled, insofar as it is not as bad as it was but there are still Palestinian people being killed nearly every week. As soon as Israel sees the slightest breach, people are killed, so we cannot say things are solved. However, it is an opportunity to try to push for the launch of a revised peace process through a multilateral peace conference. There has to be an effort to try to get this away from the security agenda and back to multilateral peace discussions.

That is the challenge. I would love to tell the Senator that I see that around the corner. I do not. However, that is the crucial bit that has to happen. The European Parliament has said it is in favour of that and I know people here have said they are in favour. That effort needs to happen quickly, and then the plan needs to be adopted. There is a very good paper by the authorities in Oman that sets out a very detailed structure that could be followed.

I am not saying I agree with every bit of it, but I read it because the Department of foreign affairs had a conference here about a month ago at which it pulled lots of countries in together and presented that paper. It seems to be a thought-out position by people who are in the region and Oman has taken a very active role in this.

I would like to see the peace conference and the efforts of people on the ground and there are a number of them who are anxious to push this on.

If I may, I will address my first question to Mr. Ahern.

Since his time in office and the Good Friday Agreement, Mr. Ahern has applied his skills and experience to assisting various conflicts around the globe, most recently, in the Philippines in the Bangsamoro peace process, which I think he is not back from too long. I appreciate that no two conflicts are alike but is there a template of the stages a process needs to move through? With regard to Gaza, could he draw a parallel to what stage or where that peace process might be at, compared to others?

The stages are clear enough; implementing them and making them work is the challenge. As I said earlier, you have to have willing people who are prepared to move from the status quo and are convinced there is another way. Then, you have to talk to the people involved in the conflict. Not being critical of anything that happened here in 1970s or 1980s but the difficulty was the people who were at the heart of the conflict and were engaged in it day to day were not at the negotiating table or had no direct way into it and there may have been many reasons for that.

The difference after the Downing Street Declaration and into 1997 and 1998 is that the people were at the table and we were able to make progress. Of course, we had to apply the George Mitchell principles that you could not be engaged in violence at the same time. That is a difficult thing to operate, as other conflicts have found.

If you are looking for perfect solutions, you will not find them in conflicts; that is for sure but it is about if there are willing people, as we had and other conflicts have had the same. I have just been in the Philippines where they are hoping to have elections shortly. They have followed their peace agreement, which I think was 2014 or 2015, and they have followed much of what was in the Good Friday Agreement. They have used the term "parity of esteem", and they are following the same process into their elections. Whether they have those elections, I was not convinced upon leaving Manila that this was what would happen exactly.

If people are prepared, if it is comprehensive and inclusive, and people are prepared to sit down at the table, then you can work your way through. The question is whether people are prepared and if Benjamin Netanyahu is really interested. If I met him I would ask him, but in the meantime I am not convinced. You have to be convinced people want to be an honest broker. Is whatever is left of the leadership of Hamas convinced?

One thing is certain, which is if they do not work on it now, it will all re-enact itself again. Those kids will grow up, will become adults and will become freedom fighters or terrorists, whichever side you are on, and that is a sure thing. Therefore, it is good leadership when you are prepared to say this is not the right thing and there are other ways to do it. That is the challenge, and that is why I suggest an international peace conference where people have to sit down, be challenged and come up with their own leadership and stop talking as if they are two different sides when they claim not to be. The more they do that, the more they will be chipped apart.

In the short time I have left, I might ask Mr. Adams a question.

In his opening statement, Mr. Adams spoke in detail about the need to have unity in Palestine and unity of the Palestinian people. Mr. Ahern also alluded to this. That is obviously needed before meaningful progress can be made in wider peace talks.

In Mr. Adams's opinion, how unified is Palestine now? I gather we are somewhat off being able to move into meaningful peace talks until the Palestinian aspect can reach unity.

This is one of the single biggest strategic questions facing the Palestinian leaderships. Everything else needs to be set to one side. They might have justification for not uniting from their own particular partisan viewpoint but the Palestinian people deserve it. It is a huge challenge, and I deliberately set out those remarks today because that is part of finding a way out of the great difficulties we are in at present.

It strikes me, and I did not think of this before we started talking here, that this committee should pose a peace conference or should ask a Government to do so. Why does this committee not invite in the representatives of all the Palestinian and Israeli factions? Do not leave it to somebody else. I am sure, because of what has been said, and it has all been said very genuinely. Your heart would break to see the dreadful suffering that unfolds day in and day out and Bertie put it very eloquently that these children are going to grow up and this will repeat itself.

There is an opportunity for a committee like this to take an initiative or to ask the Government to take an initiative like that. Invite them all in and let them spell out their respective positions.

First, I welcome Mr. Adams and Mr. Ahern in today, and I thank them for coming in. I also thank Mr. Adams for bringing up the possibility of making this committee somewhere that we could act like the US acted in bringing in and getting some peace on that. It is a great idea and I thank him for bringing that up.

As regards the Board of Peace that has been established by President Trump, I have heard contradictory positions from leaders of our Government as to whether it is ruled out or to get the necessary clarification. Could both witnesses give me their view of the board and if they believe Ireland should participate in that board?

Mr. Adams referenced earlier the need for Palestinian leaders to unite behind national demands. For the benefit of the committee, can both witnesses speak on the current status of engagement between Palestinian representative groups that have occurred over the years?

Mr. Ahern mentioned the Palestinian house needs to be in order. Could he provide an explanation for that and what Palestine should be doing to get their house in order? Maybe, as Mr. Adams suggested there, we could help to ensure that does happen.

Before Mr. Adams comes in, what can we do here as a foreign affairs committee to ensure there is peace going forward? Those are all my questions.

Briefly, on the Board of Peace, that is an exercise in colonisation. You have to see it in the context of what President Trump said some time ago, when he talked about the Gaza strip being a wonderful piece of real estate that could be developed as a big holiday park. I would hope and do not think anything will come out of this that will resolve this issue.

We have to be very hard-headed here. This is a man-made problem and I use the term "man" advisedly. It is not an accident. It is not a fluke. The difficulty for the Palestinian people is that they are poor and they are Arabs, and other parts of the world, particularly in these times, do not pay much heed to their rights and entitlements. I do not see the Board of Peace being able to deal with this because it has not been set up to deal with this in the way required. Why do we need to be hard-headed? Otherwise we are just talking through the tops of our heads and do not really believe this can be resolved. I believe this can be resolved. I am sure Bertie would agree with me that the hard work was done after the Good Friday Agreement.

Yes.

We were blessed that we had leaderships in Ireland and Britain which, for almost ten years, was able to with all of these problems. Had that not been the case then the Good Friday Agreement might have went-----

Yes.

-----despite all the good efforts. We need to knuckle down. Our starting position is that this can be resolved. What is the basis of it? The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and so have the people of Israel. That is the starting point. Then all of these illegalities internationally or breaches of international law need to be called out in a meaningful way which punishes and has a sanction. Therefore, initiatives like the occupied territories Bill and a disinvestment Bill are important. They are also important so that Palestinian people know people here care about what is happening to them.

We will just have to wait and see what this great committee brings. The fact that there is no representation from the Palestinians does not make it very easy to see how we can make any progress. I am glad to see that there are resources. Let us hope they are used appropriately but time will tell.

I will repeat what I said earlier. An agreement that promises a Palestinian state in name only is not going to work. We have had that debate for years and things have not changed over four decades. In my lifetime it has been the same old thing. The usual process always ended up in last minute high-stake pressure on the Palestinian side to accept an agreement that delivers unbalanced rights on security, the economy or borders but that will fail and that is where new thinking is required.

I agree with Gerry. I do not think any conflict is impossible to resolve. The right leadership and people who are serious about it are required. As I have already said, I agree with the comments made by Gerry Adams on unity of purpose because as long as there is no unity of purpose then it is easy to drive a cart and four horses through the Palestinian case. That is the problem until there is a unified position on its side. That requires a bit of work, but it is not impossible because this does not involve a huge amount of people. It has to start somewhere. If the Chairman wants to take on an international peace conference and get agreement for it then I wish him well. Somewhere, the new peace initiative needs to be taken forward. The reconstruction and resources behind that are great. It is a case of working out a long-term peace where these people will have self-determination and work together, and that requires people. I do not see that agenda being worked on at the moment, quite frankly.

I welcome Mr. Ahern and Mr. Adams. I thank them for the work that they did for years to create peace on this island. We have different views on loads of things but I hugely respect the work they both did at that time.

Last night, I read both statements. They are very different statements. The statement by Mr. Ahern is more of a reflection on his time during the peace process. The statement by Mr. Adams is more about lessons to be learned from the peace process that can be used to resolve the Gaza-Israel conflict. He said: "peace will never be achieved through security and military means." That was not always the position of the IRA. I find interesting when Mr. Adams reflects on his time in the peace process. When did that change happen within the IRA? How did that change come about? How did the IRA get to a position where dialogue was the answer?

If the Senator reads the history from 30 years before the Good Friday Agreement, he will see that successive IRA leaderships engaged in dialogue. There were talks during every phase. There were the Faulkner talks, talks with Protestant church leaders, talks involving loyalists and unionists and there were talks involving Seán MacBride.

I clearly remember when it struck me that the word "peace" had been hijacked and it was propaganda. We had the Northern Ireland Office, NIO, running advertisements. All sorts of others got in behind all of that. On the notion that any actions would bring about peace, you need a political settlement on which to base the peace. The IRA was very much, as it was in this part of the world between 80 and 100 years ago, a response to what was happening on the ground. For 30 years of my life I lived under military occupation. For 30 years, my neighbourhood, the community in which I lived and the housing estate I come from was under military occupation. Friends from Palestine, South Africa and Latin America when they visited here were shocked at the intensity that there were more troops from British forces in the North than there were in Iraq. The majority of those troops were deployed to what would be called "republican communities". There was the intensity of all of that. It is no accident, given the history of our place and our traditions, that faced with that type of British militarism that you would get a response. I am sometimes asked was it very difficult to persuade republicans to adopt the modes of peacemaking. It was more difficult to get some of those who were in the establishment parties to embrace that.

That is the point. Last weekend, I attended a meeting of The World Forum in Berlin where former prime ministers from Lithuania and Latvia, and other world leaders talked about the Israel-Gaza conflict. Their view is that there can be no dialogue with a terrorist organisation yet we are a prime example of where that can happen. The challenge is to convince those people that dialogue is the only solution.

Mr. Ahern said in his statement that there is "an obsessive focus on victory". That is where Israel and Gaza on both sides are at the moment. There is no talk about a concession of any point. When we had our peace deal here, Mr. Ahern said that America's involvement as a mediator made the difference as it was trusted by both sides.

Who can do that in the Israel-Gaza conflict? America cannot do it as it is seen as too pro-Israel. We cannot do it as we are seen as too pro-Palestinian. Where is the mediator who is trusted on both sides?

There are many mediators. Kofi Annan played various roles in different parts of the world for a long time. I ended up in Papua New Guinea doing that role for three years because they could not agree on Australia because they blamed them for starting the conflict, while New Zealand was too close, as were any of the island countries. Because the grandfather of O'Neill, who was the premier in Papua New Guinea, was from Derry and had followed the Northern Ireland conflict, I ended up in Papua New Guinea. You will always find a mediator but it is more than just the mediator. You need the forum. That is why I think we need the international peace conference as backup to do that. We need people to buy into it.

Going back to the Senator's earlier point, sovereign governments cannot talk to people who want to shoot their way to the table. The crucial point was when we said the Mitchell Principles have to be the rule and you cannot come to the conference table with your gun, even though some people might have done that over the years in conflicts here too. People were prepared to engage in dialogue under certain rules. They were not able to come in without any rules. That is something they have to look at, and not only in the Middle East. Israel-Palestine is a difficult one but in many conflicts if you get people to the table, you have to try to have rules. There are five serious conflicts in Africa at the moment and in only one of them are people genuinely interested in finding solutions. It is not as simple as talking to whoever the people are.

When we talk about mediation, is it Mr. Ahern's view that it is a person rather than a country who can do it in this conflict?

I think so. It is the modern-day Kofi Annan. It is somebody of that world status. I am not familiar enough to say but not somebody American and, unfortunately, not somebody Irish.

I welcome Bertie and Gerry and thank them for all the work they have been doing to bring about peace on the island of Ireland. Bertie has been working around the world, indeed, trying to apply what he has learned and has brought himself to the centre of international conflicts. It is incredibly commendable.

While we are discussing the Middle East, it cannot be lost on us that today is the fourth anniversary of the start of the war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. I was late down to the committee because we had the Ukrainian ambassador in the Seanad in relation to that.

I thank both witnesses for their opening statements and their honesty. What is important is the journey of reflection 28 years later. As was rightly said, no one younger than 35 has a sense of what life was like in Northern Ireland or of the Troubles that came over the Border. People just trying to live their lives were in terror and fear. It reminds me of when John Hume received the Nobel Peace Prize. He spoke of difference being the essence of humanity, about the need to respect it and about that difference coming from the accident of birth. In Israel or Palestine, any child could have been born on either side of it. Colum McCann puts that very well in his book Apeirogon. What Bertie says is crystal clear. It is about the willingness to do something to make where you live and the country next to you a better place for your children and the generations coming after. If that willingness is not there, it is a real problem.

In the process of building peace between two groups of people who technically share a piece of land, what is the most valuable asset a third party can bring? Bertie has had quite a bit of experience around the world. People around the world respect him for what he has done and what he brings to them. What does he think is the most important part of that?

About ten years ago, a very good Harvard professor wanted to write a book on how to solve conflicts. He wanted me to participate in an academic study on solving conflict and I asked how I could do that without knowing the individuals and the causes. I said it was an impossibility. You can do an academic study on anything but I do not think you can do it on peace processes. However, I think it comes back to self-determination, parity of esteem, equality and fairness. Those were the issues we had to struggle with for a long time and work through. From an Irish Government perspective, we took some time to understand how exactly that was seen by our northern friends and then try to understand the unionist-loyalist side of that - more the loyalist side than the unionist side, quite frankly. What is just, what is fair and what is right? That is the challenge all the time and that is why parity of esteem has found its way into several peace agreements and peace debates. What does it mean? It means fairness, justice, equality and rights. It is not just a word.

Gerry Adams said earlier, and he is totally right, that we spent five or six years battling our way through the equality agenda. Sometimes people ask if all that time was around policing or decommissioning, but there were huge, long, arduous discussions around the legislation, getting rid of militarisation, bringing it back to natural justice and changing all the draconian legislation that had been plonked there for God knows how many decades. It is the same everywhere.

On the point about talking to people, when I went to Papua New Guinea the UN guys and the Australians met me. They were all very helpful, nice and glad I was there. They said I could meet anybody and everybody but there was one person I could not meet, the leader of the people who started all this; that there was no way I could meet that person because he was trouble, trouble, trouble. I said I had to meet this person. Eventually, I meet him to find out. He was quite a wealthy guy with a cocoa and chocolate farm. He is now president of the region. If you start from the basis of listening to all the advice, sometimes you waste your time.

You go with your gut. Thanks for that.

Gerry, in your statement there are two things I would like you to elaborate on. I had this conversation with John Ging last week. The two-state solution and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination has been torn up. Is there any future for either of those? The Palestinian leaders setting aside their differences and uniting is key as well. Will Gerry elaborate on that?

I thank the Senator. Before I reply I want to go back to an earlier question about the IRA. The whole focus on the IRA from my point of view and that of Martin McGuinness and others, and especially Fr. Alex Reid, when dealing with governments and so on, was to show them an alternative.

Yes.

Give them alternative. I do not know whether that works in the Middle East but there is nobody giving them an alternative at this point. You need to have from the Palestinian people a leadership that reflects their desires, rights and entitlements and is not sidetracked. Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic organisation so I would be opposed to that, but that is beside the point. I am opposed to most of the political parties around here. I am not trying to draw comparisons between them and Hamas. We just have to put up with our differences of opinion. If Palestinian leaders cannot see that united we stand, divided we fall then so powerful are the forces of Israel and those it can summon to support it. Netanyahu does not want peace or a peace settlement and has been very clear about what he wants. Will the Palestinian folks be able to put that together? I think they will be. They have to go through some pain. They have to reflect on their lives and the time they have spent dedicated to the struggle, the time they have spent in prison and so on and so forth. It is so important.

What we very consciously did here was to try to get that unity of purpose behind those three or four basic demands. That is what the Sinn Féin peace strategy was about. We consciously went after Irish America. We consciously tried to get the Irish Government to take up these basic positions. We consciously talked to John Hume. You ended up with a unity of purpose or in other words, there was an alternative. It might not be perfect and might not be whatever but it is a way of going forward and it is self-evident for folks at the Palestinian end of it.

I thank Gerry and Bertie for a very interesting hour so far. It is a terrible word but growing up were almost immune to what was going on in the North. You turned on your TV at 6 p.m. with your family to see more deaths upon deaths upon deaths. That has been replicated for the last two years over in Gaza and I feel we have been immune as well. One thing is for sure, which is that there is no peace in Gaza tonight. I hate quoting this statistic but it is important we keep emphasising 67,000 people are dead, that we know of, including almost 20,000 kids. Some 10% of those, which is almost 2,000 kids, were killed before they could walk. In our lifetime we have never seen a genocide like what is going on in Gaza. It has been said many times but I often feel like what has gone on in Gaza has almost been like a test for us and a test many countries have failed miserably. They really have. They stood back and looked at what is going on there, at the mass genocide out there.

I want to be totally respectful to Gerry, but he seems to have the emphasis on Palestine to initiate the process, whereas from what I see Israel has got €31 billion in weapons from many countries close to here. I am feeling Palestine really wants to initiate a peace process but people are living in rubble, whereas Israel has all the comforts and is attacking countries around it. I would love to play that out a bit more with Gerry. He kept emphasising Palestine rather than Israel initiating this. I know both parties are needed.

Those who want the maximum change need to make the maximum effort and you have got to deal with the hand you are given. Way back, I cannot remember the exact time, Chairman Arafat had a very good personal relationship with Bertie and used to phone him in the middle of the night. One time he phoned in the middle of the night because the Israeli troops were in his compound. They were in his garden. Imagine troops being in the Áras and troops messing about President Connolly and so on and so forth. I am just giving that as an example. The person in the highest position the Palestinian people had was treated so disrespectfully by Israeli forces. That is not going to change unless the Palestinian people get a means of arguing for an alternative. What I have argued in this little paper is the widespread international disgust at what is happening there and the support for the Palestinian people could be galvanised by an anti-apartheid international organisation which would then seek to put pressure on the various governments of the world. Here the Government has huge support from the people on the question of peace in the Middle East and of Palestine so it can take initiatives, and people on committees like this and in institutions like this can take initiatives. It is unfortunate but for as long as the Palestinian leaderships are divided it will be easier for the Israelis to continue doing what they are doing.

I agree with Mr. Adams but the key words used were about a commitment to the peace process. Does he feel that is coming from both countries at the moment?

No.

How can we get there? I will let Bertie come in on this one.

Let me reply very briefly.

Of course.

If there was a viable peace process I believe the Palestinian leaderships would embrace it. I do not think the current Israeli Government would do so but the Palestinian leaders would. If you look at all the various factions they have all argued for the position which I have just put, which is not my position but their position.

Yes, but bringing it back to Northern Ireland, Gerry made a great statement there, which I read about before, about the unionists getting up and walking out when Sinn Féin walked in to the negotiating table, but at least both were in the same building. I cannot see Israel and Palestine in the one building at the moment.

I am sorry because I have to leave time for Bertie, but as I said at the beginning of this session they were talking to Hamas and they will talk to them again tomorrow. They might talk to them through Bertie or some other intermediary but it is not an absolute position. We should also be mindful of the famous song that goes "And you dare to call me a terrorist, while you look down your gun". Nobody has a monopoly on any of this but in my view the Palestinian leaderships, divided though they are at present, would embrace a proper peace process.

The one thing to add to that is we must remember part of the problem is a lot of the Gulf states and Arab states have - I was going to say "cosy up" but I will not - got far friendlier and started doing negotiations with Israel. This was on the basis that it was in their strategic interest but also that this was going to help the peace process, that this was going to help Palestine.

That is why a lot of the Arab states did that. That has not worked. That is one bit on the international community. Another bit is that there are many countries in the west that have no time for Palestine and were not prepared to do much to help them out. We can accept their cases and positions although we did not like it and we took a different position. That work has to go on as well while the Palestinians are getting their house in order and Gerry has outlined in detail what he thinks they need to and can do. That is why an international peace conference is necessary. You have to get to what the Arab states and also the Gulf states are going to do and that leads to all the other issues. We know all the difficulties around that. Then what about the European countries that take a very different position to us. There are many facets to this. The organisation that should be doing this is the United Nations - at least I was brought up to understand that was the case - but I just do not think at the moment it is in the position. Even though the Secretary General is a good friend of mine, the former Portuguese prime minister, I do not see it has the capacity to be able to pull this together. But somebody has to pull it together because it was not pulled together and 2014 and 2015 happened as the Deputy said earlier. Hamas went Kamikaze and did what it did in 2023 and 2024. That has led to the last few years. The next one is going to happen. As sure as we are sitting here at this foreign affairs committee the next one is going to happen if the international community does not do something about it rather than making pious statements – and we are probably doing the same. You have to do something about it and the only way you can do that is by getting an international peace group with a chair of international standing who can do this.

I will go back to another thing. I am involved in a number of things and I know Gerry Adams has been involved in several conflicts. I was not involved in Colombia but a lot of people put a lot of effort into Colombia. We should not forget that every day in different parts of Africa horrendous things are happening. Thousands are being killed whether in the Congo, on the Eritrea border or wherever. I get these reports and, to be honest, they are hard read - you get through the first few pages of them. Every single day there are atrocities across the world. I am not saying we should not focus on Palestine but all these other ones are going on and it is terrible. There is slaughter.

While the original focus might have been on the Middle East, the Department has done a scoping paper for us that broadens it out. I might ask the witnesses some questions at the end.

I welcome both Gerry and Bertie here and thank them for their work down the years to achieve the Irish peace process. I remember getting up every morning to the radio news that was so different. Thank God to see the end of it and that the two of them achieved that with others.

I will ask my questions in sequence, get the answers and the move to the next one. If I understand both of the witnesses, they both have grave doubts and scepticism around the Board of Peace. Therefore two questions arise. Is their fundamental fear around the Board of Peace that the self-determination of the Palestinian people will not be achieved? Will the Board of Peace usurp the UN - Bertie spoke about that - or will it serve as a wake-up call to the UN? Bertie has somewhat answered this question in his last set of remarks, but is the UN doing enough everywhere? He mentioned an international group of elders, for want of a better term, to initiate a peace process how do we dovetail this with the UN or the Board of Peace?

You cannot ignore the UN. The worry we have is that President Trump, in his new group, might ignore the UN but he has not said that either. That is a concern they have. The difficulty is the UN is extraordinarily pressed and is under huge pressure. I have worked in various places and a lot of the people are cutting back their key field staff – people on the ground are being cut out and this is whole programmes. I will give an example from the Carter Institute, where I was recently. It had 300 people in one project working in the Middle East, trying to pull together Israelis and Palestinians. The budget was cut. Actually, I will rephrase that. The budget was eliminated and 300 people were let go at the beginning of February. That is an entire programme. When we are here talking about trying to make peace and the UN that is an entire programme just eliminated. The individual who was running the whole thing is back in the Carter Institute and the whole thing came to nothing. The UN is under horrendous pressures and it is mainly due to the United States cutting their programmes massively and eliminating programmes. I do not think the number of people who are just eliminated from these programmes gets the attention it should. It is not that they were cut back and are getting less money - they are just gone. These are people I worked with who had massive experience. It is just horrendous.

On the other question, if you do not get Palestine-Israel into a balanced process that equalises Palestinian and Israeli views and there is a commitment to a balanced outcome that contains legal degrees, international degrees of self-determination and security then I do not see where you can go. The only way to do that is with some group under the UN but it needs to be a new group and new people.

I think the UN needs reform. We have to live with the reality that international law is not being upheld and that has been the case long before Trump. The international wall – the separation wall – is a breach of international law; the settlements are breaches of international law; the destruction of people’s homes are breaches on international law. You go through a long list of all these things. On the Board of Peace, the Palestinians are excluded. I go back to what I said earlier. If the Board of Peace has a mission statement it is the one that President Trump talked about when he talked about the Gaza Strip being a wonderful site for holidays and so on. That is how I see it. I do not see any other way of seeing it.

We also have to accept that President Trump has stepped outside of any sort of norm for international relationship. He is going to go into Iceland. He is going to annex Canada. He is going to do whatever he is going to do with Mexico. You go through the list of places that he has talked about and it is just naked colonialism and naked imperialism. The international community is only now starting to come to terms with dealing with this unique human being.

However, they have to uphold international law. It is not right.

I thank the witnesses. Having regard to their vast experience of the Irish peace process, what precise advice would they give the Palestinian people now, given their fragmentation, their disparate state, how desecrated or how dispersed their people are, etc.? What would they say specifically to the Palestinian people themselves rather than international actors?

Let us pass the disinvestment Bill. That is what you say to them; just make it real. One of the idiosyncrasies of me being me is that when I go to the Middle East, I get treated like a Palestinian. That is the way the security and other institutions deal with it. You end up going through the same process that Palestinians have to go through every single day, if you want to go from one side of Jerusalem to the other. Whatever we experienced in Belfast or other parts of the North, there is an intensity and sheer wickedness to what is going on. It did happen here before under British rule, particularly in this part of the island. It is happening on a daily basis there. They just come in and demolish somebody's home.

Time is up, Senator. I am sorry. There will be not be a next one, I suspect, so thank you.

I might begin with the Chair's own contribution, where he talked about us looking at whether we could institutionalise the whole peace process and everything that came about through it and since it. The first time I ever heard that idea mentioned was by the late Aga Khan, the international philanthropist, who wanted to see this country establish a school for peace, where UN peacekeepers would come and be trained and learn from what happened through the Good Friday Agreement and the international peacekeeping effort. I would be interested if the panel has a view on that.

I will run a few questions together very quickly. It is great to be starting with these two gentlemen because their contribution to our peace process has been colossal. We should never miss, in this country, an opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who brought us to the stage we are at today. That is one of the reasons I am so sad about what happened in that university in the North in regard to George Mitchell. I am profoundly sad that, having found that he did nothing wrong, what happened happened.

Is it a case that for peace to happen, the combatants have to accept that the war is not going to be won? The combatants have to accept that the proven enemies are going to have to talk to each other and that when it came to the situation with ourselves, we were fortunate that there was a parity of esteem on behalf of the international community for both Ireland and Britain - that special relationship Britain always had with the US, and the influence that Irish people had in American politics. That is absent from the situation that exists in the Middle East. There is huge American support for the State of Israel and for its successive Governments, even Netanyahu's regime. That has been the case irrespective of who has been in the White House. Six or seven years ago, I had the great privilege of meeting one of the finest people I have ever met, Mr. Aboul Gheit, the Secretary-General of the Arab League who said, with emphasis, that the Israeli Government would talk about peace and talk about talks about peace while all the time building the settlements, leading to a point where there would be no space for two states to exist.

The witnesses have made two really important points. They have talked about an international peace conference that, I think, would have to have a huge international stage where the whole world would be looking in. I think that is really important. They have also emphasised the huge impact that individuals can have. We know when we look back at history how some individuals made intractable problems far worse - Netanyahu being a case in point and Putin being another case in point. They also highlighted - Mr. Ahern, I think, in particular - how individuals can make a difference for good. Really, there has to be an international search, beginning in the Middle East, for someone. I would suggest someone from the region would have far more influence, certainly on the Arab community, than somebody from Europe or the United States. Would the witnesses concur with me on that? Is that a direction in which they think we might go, or, finally, is it a case that we are going to have to see regime change, that we will not have peace until Netanyahu is gone and we will definitely not, it would appear, have peace until Putin has exited the stage?

I agree with that but the difficulty is it is an election year. Things might change and things might not change. That is the difficulty. Netanyahu could be re-elected. God knows what will happen.

The Deputy's point that there is phenomenal support in the United States for the Israeli position is a big difficulty. I have been lucky enough to be able to argue with many of the people who are very strong in that position. Even in the Carter Institute, where you get people who are good, balanced and fair - I refer to all the good work the late President Carter did in his latter years, and the institute is continuing to do that work - straight away, you are back to what happened on 7 October. If you can get over the argument about what happened on 7 October, you are back to 2014 or 2015 and then they try to tell you about the history. I had to argue that we had a lot of history since 1169 as well. We can argue those positions.

If you are to bring this forward, now and again there is a window and I think 2026 has a window, whether that is for an international convention, a part or a committee of the UN or whatever. I do not disagree with the Deputy on the region. In fairness to Oman it has done phenomenal work over past few years to get to a peace settlement. I might not agree with all of their positions but they did try. Whoever or whatever it is, or whatever structure it is, it is necessary because if it is allowed to drift, on goes the problem.

We are back to the same old argument: are people prepared? You have to start almost with the terms of reference on self-determination, the rights of people, peaceful ways of negotiating and ensuring that all the violence has to stop. All of these things have to be built into it but it is possible. It is not easy but it is possible.

All of us have witnessed a shift to the right in global politics and in many parts of the world. Arguably, that has happened very intensely in the State of Israel. I remember that any time I went there, we always met with Israelis as well as Palestinians. There was a time when the Government would not speak to a Sinn Féin delegation but there were always people within the community sector who would speak to us. These were people who were involved and working with their Palestinian neighbours, much the same way as people from both sections of the communities in the North worked together. I forget which year this was but there was nobody we met who did not want peace.

In the Palestinian ghettos, in the slightly better-off Israeli rooms in universities, etc., they all wanted peace. They also all knew what the shape of the settlement was going to be. They all knew at that point it was going to be a two-state settlement and they, more or less, had their heads around that. That moment in history has, I think, now been lost and a lot of responsibility rests with Netanyahu.

As for how can we interact on and change that, I agree absolutely that individuals can make a difference. The late Fr. Alec Reid is the shining example. He and the late Fr. Des Wilson are two individuals who made a huge difference in terms of their vocation.

We have to go forward, optimistically and with hope but based upon the objective reality that we are living in and the people there are living in.

A peace university or peace school might be a good idea but it begs the question as to who would do the teaching because there are fundamentals that are required for any process to work.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as an am a thógaint labhairt linn. Tá sé an-luachmhar go dtí seo. Is plé úsáideach atá ann.

Before I go to my questions, I echo what Senator O'Loughlin has said. On the fourth anniversary of the illegal and horrific invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, I offer solidarity to the people of Ukraine.

Bertie Ahern spoke in relation to the conflicts in Africa and he is absolutely right. In this committee we have attempted to focus particularly on Sudan where there is appalling slaughter taking place. It is important that remains on the agenda as well.

My focus is largely on the first of my two questions, which I will ask of both speakers. A lot of the topics and areas on which there is some learning from Ireland have been explored but I want to touch on the issue of the settlements. It seems that for some 30 years now, the focus and the international consensus has been in relation to a two-state solution. I support that position. It also seems that the strategy of the Israeli Government for at least ten years and maybe longer than that has been to gradually undermine the ground that exists for that by tearing away at the fabric for a potential viable Palestinian state. Obviously the Palestinians, in various guises, attempt to resist that but it is difficult unless the international community holds up the Israelis for their breaches of international law and for attempting to effectively undermine the viability of a Palestinian state. I suppose my first question is: what mechanisms can Ireland, but also the international community, use? It is absolutely right and I agree with everything that has been said in terms of the need for unity of purpose among the Palestinian people at a political level but, ultimately, the international community is clearly required as well because otherwise it becomes ever more challenging for that kind of agreement to take place as attempts are made to undermine the potential for a Palestinian state, which is essential and which, in my view, is in the long-term interests of the Palestinian people and the Israeli people because it offers security, stability and peace for all.

On my second question, I am only looking for a general comment. I suppose the issue of including all voices has been very much to the fore in both their statements but also in our own experience. It is fair to say that in Ireland that required leadership and courage. It required courage in terms of putting the peace process and the future of this country ahead, sometimes, of political expediency. That is true of both of witnesses here. It is true of people such as David Trimble and Albert Reynolds. I wonder about that inclusion part there. Obviously, it requires courage. Is there anything that we can learn from our own experience in terms of how you create the space or how you encourage that kind of courage from, for example, the leaders both in Israel, where, I think, there is clearly a lack of political leadership but also across the board?

The term "settlement" is very misleading. You think about it as sort of like a Travellers' encampment or some sort of wild west type of arrangement. These are palatial palaces. You are driving through desert and all of a sudden, it is as if you have landed in a tourist resort. They are green. They are surrounded by these big walls. It is almost a mis-term but they get away with it. At the risk of being repetitive, you have to come back to the message that this State and this Government needs to support the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023 and the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. It is simple. That is the very minimum that needs to be acted upon.

In terms of the way that the Government here sees its place in the world, and I know we are a small place and we obviously do not have the same collateral in some of these international forums or settings, we need to speak up, because if we do not, or if we do not make the position in support of self-determination, who will? Bertie Ahern made a very important point earlier on when he was talking about the Arab states. All of that just argues for the awfulness of the position which the Palestinian find themselves in and we, quite rightly, reflected upon the fact that there are 27 other conflict sites throughout the world.

Ireland needs to be the island of peace-making internationally. We need to build upon the reality, imperfect though it may be, incomplete though it may be, and not finished though it has to be finished. We have a peace process that works as against all those other ones that either do not work or do not even get the chance. We need to find ways of ventilating that position and then using whatever influence we have internationally to press the case.

The settlements or whatever we call them are just designed to wreck the two-state solution and that is what they have been designed to do for years. I have listened at length to people argue about the historic rights of people for hundreds of years, that is where they had their goats, etc., but I was never impressed with those arguments, quite frankly. They are, as Gerry Adams has said, obnoxious. When you see some of them, they seem to have picked - and this is a decade ago now - some of the most beautiful sites. You talk about An Bord Pleanála, or whatever you call it, and building a place where you should not be allowed to build, that is what they have done. It is horrendous. They have been at it for years, even in times when it was more peaceful. The challenge for us is to keep our voice strong on these issues.

The one thing I would love to see is a very clear EU position on all these issues. I have watched things for a few years and it does not seem easy to achieve that. We know the countries that are very stroppy about making any progress in these areas. You almost have to move on beyond this point.

The settlements are just the confiscation of land and they are making life very difficult. However, that should not stop the effort. If a two-state solution is not on, what happens? That is an argument that is now being debated by many.

The point, on which I do not really require a response, is that unless the international community finds ways of stopping and reversing what is happening, confidence in the ability to deliver a solution ebbs away on the Palestinian side.

We are joined by Senator Frances Black, who initiated the occupied territories Bill in the Seanad a number of years ago.

Gabhaim buíochas le Bertie Ahern agus Gerry Adams as ucht teacht isteach chun an choimhlint agus na ndeacrachtaí sa Mheánoirthear a phlé linn. It was lovely to meet them both recently. I met Mr. Adams most recently at the Conradh na Gaeilge Ard-Fheis, and met Mr. Ahern on foot of his ongoing work on the Good Friday Agreement and his visit to the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It was very interesting to listen to them both.

The focus of my question is on how best we can effect change. Mr. Adams stated that regardless of our size as a nation, we need to ensure our voice is heard. When the German ambassador visited the Seanad in the not-too-distant past, I tried in my speech to emphasise the importance of EU member states working together to support progress in the Middle East, particularly when there is a lack of strong international leadership and we are dealing with flaws in the UN and its ability to assist in progress towards a long-term solution. As we approach Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, how best can we use our position to ensure a lasting peace, to ensure the EU will have an influence on making progress towards a lasting peace in the Middle East, and ultimately to steer, or assist in steering, the ship back in whatever way we can back towards a two-state solution and the long-term peaceful coexistence of the State of Israel and Palestine?

The short answer to that is that we should use every opportunity we have. Our position is well known and not very popular with many. We have to be factual about that. I have got it in the ear about it from several people in several places. You do not get it here, thankfully, but it is no good saying you do not get it abroad. I think we have to continue to make our case, and the Government should use the Presidency and every other opportunity to do so. So should our MEPs and these Houses.

In fairness, I cannot be critical of what has been done. Our position has been well set out for a number of years and we should just continue to articulate that at every opportunity we have.

I agree completely on this because when I did spoke to the German ambassador, his reservations were based on wanting to see more established democratic institutions. Coming up on the train today, I was listening with interest to the European Parliament discussion on the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine. It is fantastic to see the EU's commitment to and solidarity with Ukraine but it is regrettable that it has not taken a similar stance on assisting with the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East. Mr. Adams might like to comment on that.

Obviously, I support the people of Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression and the invasion. It is a complete contradiction that the EU can have such a position on the rights of the people of Ukraine and an opposite or silent position on the rights of the people of Palestine.

To deal with one of our own issues, under Ireland’s Presidency of the EU I would like to see the Government advancing the position on the Good Friday Agreement referendum on Irish unity. It is almost 30 years since the agreement was signed and the Government is not even planning for or thinking about this. It knocks it back. We should remember that when we do have the referendum and, as I hope, the people decide the island should be united, it will put us in an even better position to use our influence internationally. For the first time in centuries, we would have sovereign self-determination on a united island, with the differences and divisions that exist harmonised and people living together in peace.

As Mr. Ahern said, every opportunity that presents itself should be used to the best effect to bring peace. Someone spoke very eloquently about the fact that someone aged 30-odd years would have no real recollection of the conflict in the North unless their family was affected by it. Sometimes older people say to me that the young people take it all for granted. I say that is the case and ask why they should not. Obviously, they should learn their history but let them enjoy their youth. Bobby Sands famously talked about the day that the laughter of our children would come. He said our revenge would be the laughter of our children. For us to complete our own process here will be a huge accelerant and mandate to continue such work in other troubled parts of the world. We have a duty to do that.

I thank both Mr. Ahern and Mr. Adams for coming in today and for the great work they have done on the Good Friday Agreement. It is an incredible agreement.

I will try to be as quick as I can. What I really want to highlight today is how important respect for international law is. I believe it was Mr. Adams who said international law is not being upheld. There is no doubt about that. We know that Netanyahu does not want peace. There is no doubt about that either.

International law was one of the pillars of the Good Friday Agreement, which is absolutely vital. We are talking about peace today. A key element of the Irish peace process concerned parity of esteem and the insistence that any illegal activity must cease for a peace process to work. We see the Israeli settlements being expanded every single day. They are totally illegal. Every single day, there is a breaking of international law. I tabled the occupied territories Bill knowing it is impossible to have a peace process in Palestine if settlements are still being built on occupied land. It is a total breach of international law. We all know that in 2024 the International Court of Justice agreed with this. The court stated that all states, including Ireland, must ensure they do not contribute to the settlements and therefore must stop all trade with them. I regret to say that, nearly two years later, things have not changed. I introduced the Bill in 2018. Only a few countries have acted. I was told in the very beginning that we could not proceed unilaterally. Now two countries have done what I propose but Ireland is not one of them.

Mr. Ahern mentioned that we really need action. I would love to hear him say a little more about the need for action from the international community in pushing for peace. I was in the West Bank and Gaza and a woman asked me why the international community had abandoned them.

We have totally abandoned the Palestinian people. We all know that if the Palestinian people are not free none of us is free. None of us is free until we actually take action. I only have two minutes now for the witnesses to answer, and I thank them very much for all their work.

I thank the Senator for all the work she has done over several years in highlighting this. It has contributed to the knowledge of the Irish people on the whole Palestinian question and the debates in here, and to winning a lot of support and in these Houses for that.

I have said what I have said about the settlements. There is no doubt that it is a breach of international law. It is designed to wreck the two-state solution. Netanyahu uses that to good effect and has done for several years. It is a long time since I visited some of the first settlements that were built and were completed at that stage. I have met with a lot of Palestinians. The Senator is probably familiar with Dr. Ali and his people who were over more recently. They are very respectful of what the Irish people, the Irish Government and the Irish Administration have actually done for them. They are in no way critical. They want Irish people to do more and they want the Government to do more. I agree with that and let us see. We have a big opportunity this year because we will be on the world stage more than we would normally would be, whether or not that gets the Senator her occupied territories Bill. I am not even sure where it is at the moment but I commend the work the Senator is doing on the issue.

I think the Government is refusing to implement it. It is clear that if they wanted to it would have been done long since. It should do it immediately.

I will just refer quickly to the anti-apartheid movement back in the 1980s where we had two women who refused to sell oranges. It is a wonderful example of how real change can happen by two women refusing to sell oranges in Dunnes Stores. The occupied territories Bill is a perfect example. It is not even about a full ban on trade with Israel; it is just with the illegal settlements because Israel is breaking international law. As far as I am concerned, we should ban all trade with Israel at this point but, at the end of the day, we saw how a movement happened in the 1980s. I have travelled the length and breadth of this country to packed out halls where the people of Ireland want this. In Galway County Council and Galway City Council motions were passed unanimously in the past few weeks. Even the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael members on the ground want this Bill passed and yet we are still seeing delay tactics from our Government. The anti-apartheid movement is a brilliant example of how real change can happen. The first step towards that is passing the occupied territories Bill.

In a world where adopting two positions on an issue can be difficult in our debate on the occupied territories Bill I recall when the former Deputy and former Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, was here. One of the points he made was about Ireland using its experience in the peace process. He made a lot of other comments but he did make that comment and it landed with me certainly. I want to acknowledge that as an important part of his contribution.

We have run out of time really. I am very grateful for the time the witnesses have given to this and the seriousness with which they have taken it, for the questions and the manner in which they were asked by members, and for the manner in which the witnesses answered them. It has advanced the topic for anybody watching or reading this debate. The motivation behind this is to go further than the Middle East but clearly it is the one. I also want to acknowledge Ukraine and Sudan and that there will be another day when maybe we will see some insight into the other peace processes that the witnesses have been involved in and continue to be involved in. Bertie Ahern was in Kosovo as well and I have listened to his experience on that.

We are not taking for granted the vulnerable and delicate nature of our own peace process. It constantly needs to be nurtured. This is the first meeting. If this Parliament lasts three or four years, it will be the first in a series of meetings. We want to return to this topic. I thank the witnesses and members for their positive response to it. I thank also those in the Gallery, which is normally not as well populated as it was today, for interest in this. The committee will adjourn until Thursday, 19 March, when we will meet in private session on Microsoft Teams.