I second the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by Senator Mary White. A few weeks ago Senator David Norris and others raised the issue of an alleged village called Susiya on the West Bank. A number of us had received information on this by e-mail. I decided that in this instance I would contact the Israeli embassy to establish exactly what its position was. Inevitably what happens in this House whenever issues of Israeli-Palestinian relationships are raised, we hear about the Palestinian side. If the House will allow me, I will read relevant parts of the response I received. The Israeli embassy response states that Susiya is not and never was a recognised village. It states that there is an archaeological site there showing signs of ancient Jewish habitations from 1,500 years ago. In recent years clusters of illegal structures have been built around Susiya in breach of planning and zoning laws. The embassy response also points out that it is a Bedouin settlement which is a largely barren territory that is controlled by Israel and is state land according to the Oslo Accords.

This issue was raised by way of a Commencement matter by Senator Terry Leyden this morning.

Yes, but I wish to give the Israeli side of the argument. They say the authorities in the area have offered alternative lands nearby which will improve the petitioners' quality of living, enabling access to civil infrastructure systems and improve access to educational facilities. They state the offer does not obstruct the continuation of the same agricultural activities in the lands to which the petitioners lay claim, that their petition will be heard by the Israeli Supreme Court next month, and that the authorities will heed any decision reached by the court. The final point of the embassy is that in the broader context the attempts to portray the issue of Susiya as a human rights issue are egregious in that the issue relates to illegal building and any attempt to portray it as anything else merely confirms that it is being used as another propaganda tool to generate hostility towards Israel. I wanted to put that statement on the record of the House. It is a matter for Members of the House to decide on who is right and wrong, but time and again in this House we have heard one side of the argument and I wanted to give the other. Whether one supports it or otherwise, they are entitled to their point of view.

I ask that the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs would come to the House, tomorrow if possible but certainly next week, to afford this House the opportunity of discussing the Greek crisis. As a House we have not voiced any opinion on the Greek crisis as it has developed over recent weeks. Particularly in the light of the decisions that are imminent this weekend it is very important that this House has an opportunity to express its views and to hear the Government view. There are conflicting signals coming from the Government on what exactly is the Irish Government's attitude towards Greece. We are hearing, on the one hand, about the great empathy we have with the Greek people but, on the other, there are suggestions we are siding with the German bankers. I do not think that obfuscation and ambiguity should be allowed to stay on the record any longer.

We need clarity. We on this side of the House have made it quite clear that we support the efforts of the Greek Government to get its people out from under all the austerity that could continue for at least a decade, a situation I do not think anyone would find that acceptable.