I look forward to the Leader coming back to Senators Marie-Louise O'Donnell and John Crown. I am keen to have the respective Ministers before the House and a meaningful debate. Certainly, this should be arranged for no later than early next week, if it cannot happen today or tomorrow.

I wish to address No. 58, motion No. 9, and motion No. 10 refers. Senator Averil Power has proposed that No. 58, motion No. 9, be taken before No. 1 or No. 2. In proposing such a political manoeuvre she has outlined a strong case. Will the Leader indicate whether we will have a debate on this motion? Will we hear from the Minister? Will we be in a position to inquire about Government policy? I have a difficulty with the motion and with what I believe to be a very unbalanced presentation of middle eastern politics in the House. We see one side and only one side of the story. Historically, if we look at this area from the perspective of Israel and the broader Jewish community, this House and the other House have never been sympathetic to the state of Israel or to Jewish people and that is something we should be ashamed of. It is a small, perhaps not perfect, but functioning, democracy in a sea of general dictatorship.

Not when it bombs Gaza.

There are two sides to the story.

There should be two states.

I believe there should be two states.

The Senator is way over time.

We all recognise that there are states in the Middle East that have no wish for the state of Israel to survive and that is something we should discuss also. We need a full balanced debate not simply a call to populism. I call on the Leader to set aside time for that debate rather than simply rubber-stamping a motion which may be populist - that does not mean it is correct.