Return to Zion

There’s a palpable air of tension these days at the Israeli Embassy.

Apart from some angry protests outside during the height of the recent attacks on Palestine, the embassy has been inundated with irate phone calls and hate mail. There was also an online petition seeking the closure of the office, as well as a letter from a group of highly respected Irish artists and intellectuals in support of a cultural boycott of Israel. In addition there was an emergency evacuation in January after a suspect package, which turned out to be a hoax, was posted to the embassy.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that security is more stringent than that at Portlaoise Prison, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year to meet a certain Mr John Gilligan.
After gaining access to the reception area, I was ordered to empty my pockets of all electronic devices, including my mobile phone, and leave them in a designated area. Only after it was confirmed that I was a journalist was I allowed to keep my tape recorder.
Soon afterwards, a grim-faced Israeli sentinel – presumably a Mossad agent – approached me and requested my passport for scrutiny. Satisfied my identification was valid, I was ushered into the elevator and brought upstairs. Here, I was asked to empty my pockets and walk back and forth through a metal detector. I was then asked to switch on my digital voice recorder. Concluding I wasn’t carrying any lethal weapons, he led me through a security hub that suggested bullet proof doors.
The security agent then escorted me into an office to meet Ambassador Zion Evrony. Posted in Ireland since 2006, Evrony was previously head of the Policy Planning Bureau at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem. Evrony was also Israel’s Consul General in Houston (1995 – 2002) and befriended George Bush jnr. during his time in the US. In fact, when Bush became President, Evrony travelled with him to Israel.
“I helped organise his trip to Israel and accompanied him. I was on this famous helicopter tour of Israel with President Bush. Coming from Texas, he was stunned that it took only two or three minutes for the helicopter to cross from one side of Israel to the other side. Texas is 40 times the size of Israel,” he recalls.
“He is a very friendly and warm person and was clearly moved by the religious sites we visited in Israel. There is a saying that God is universal. You can pray to God from anywhere, from your church, from your synagogue, from your office – but if you come to Jerusalem and you want to call God, you will discover that it is considered a local call.”
If gaining access to the embassy was difficult, so too was organising this interview. The Ambassador was initially reluctant to conduct an in-depth discussion with an Irish publication. “I’ve given many interviews, but I usually do it if it’s on the radio live or on television – no problem. In print, I’ve learnt from my experiences to do it in writing. I’m a diplomat, so I have to be careful!”
I point out that he has an MA in political science and a PhD in International Relations.
“Politicians can. But as a diplomat you have to be more careful. But I read some of your articles and I trust you. Go ahead,” he says, as both parties click on tape recorders for this interview.
A few days later, they kindly send me a transcript of the conversation.

Jason O'Toole: Do you accept that Palestinians have the right to create their own State?
Zion Evrony: The Palestinians have the right to create their State, of course. This is something that will have to be agreed by Israel in terms of the nature of this State, its borders and so on. The creation of a future Palestinian state is part of the peace negotiations, but the solution that we ultimately see is based on the formula of two states for two peoples.
What about the theory of the one State solution?
The one-state solution is no solution at all. It is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel. Some who advocate it are extremely naïve, others have a sinister purpose – masking their dream of eliminating Israel. The only solution is that of two states living side by side in peace.
Why won’t Israel open up political dialogue with Hamas?
The international community, which includes the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, have accepted three conditions that Hamas has to fulfil if it wants to be part of the political dialogue: recognising Israel’s right to exist; renounce and stop terrorism; and accept all prior agreements signed between Israel and Palestinian authorities. So, this is a kind of code of conduct similar to the Mitchell Principles (in Northern Ireland).
But hasn’t there been a suggestion by Hamas that they are willing to negotiate? For example, didn’t former US President Jimmy Carter say that Hamas would be willing to go down the route of peace and end their philosophy of the total destruction of Israel?
Hamas is a terrorist organisation whose stated aim is Israel’s destruction. Its 1988 Charter – which I recommend you and your readers to look at – calls for the elimination of Israel. The IRA never had in its political platform or charter as a goal the destruction of Britain. Hamas completely rejects the idea of a two-State solution; instead it wants to create an Islamic fundamentalist State covering the whole region including Israel; and it is part of the global phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Therefore Hamas is a real obstacle to peace. Before becoming part of the political process, Hamas must change. As I previously said, it must accept the three conditions laid down by the quartet.
But by winning the election, isn’t it apparent that Hamas’ message clearly resonated with the ordinary Palestinians?
I think Hamas’ victory is mainly a result of domestic Palestinian issues and not because of its message of violence and objection to peace. I still believe that the majority of Palestinians reject Hamas’ message of radical Islam and its call for the destruction of Israel.
You are basically saying Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas?
The Middle East is divided today not between Israelis and Arabs but between moderates and extremists and the dividing line is, among other things, how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The moderates – that includes Israel, Egypt, Jordan, moderate Palestinians – all believe that the solution is the two State solution. This is the solution that is the just, durable, logical vision that we have to aspire to. Two States living side by side in peace – the State of Israel that already exists as a homeland for the Jewish people, and a future State of Palestine, as a homeland for the Palestinian people wherever they are. So this vision of two States for two peoples is accepted by these moderates. Those who objected – and therefore my claim that Hamas is an obstacle to peace – include Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. These are the forces who object to this. This is the radical camp. This is the camp of those extremists. Hamas has a record of killing, torture, harassing political opponents and the press. It brainwashes children to hate all Jews and trains boys as young as seven to become martyrs.
You wrote in the Herald-Tribune back in 2007: “The political vision and religious belief of Hamas are one and the same; therefore, change is unlikely.” So, if change is unlikely, is the only solution the annihilation of Hamas?
No. I don’t want to get into that. I think what would be more important is for the Palestinians to pressure Hamas to change. Hamas has to change. Our main goal right now – and this was the purpose and logic behind Israel’s military operation – is to put an end to the firing of rockets and missiles on Israeli civilians. Both sides declared ceasefires. But did you know that rockets and missiles are still being fired everyday on Israeli civilians, as we speak?
You are claiming that Hamas are firing missiles literally everyday at Israel?
It’s not being reported here! Here is a clear example – two days ago, a grad missile landed near a kindergarten in Israel. The fact that Israeli civilians are not killed is why it doesn’t make the headlines here. But this has been the story of the past eight years prior to the operation in Gaza…
But there hasn’t been many Israeli casualties during the last eight years. So, why attack now?
Because of a sophisticated system of early warning sirens and shelters, not many Israelis were killed. However, civilians have been killed; many injured; houses destroyed; synagogues destroyed; shopping malls attacked. Life became unbearable. So this is the logic of Israel’s military operation. The goal was to put an end to the suffering of the Israeli people. I have been asking – time and time again – my Irish friends, ‘What would you do if your neighbourhood was under similar attack? What would you do if 8,000 rockets fell on your neighbourhood? What would you expect your government to do? Would you not expect your government to fulfil its main duty, which is to protect you? To provide you with security?’ So, we have restrained ourselves for eight years and, eventually, we said, ‘Enough is enough!’ There’s a time in a life of a nation that you have to fulfil your right of self defence, to protect yourself.
You say Israel ‘restrained’ itself for the last eight years?
Yes, of course.
But this isn’t the first time during the past eight years that Israel has carried out military operations, which have resulted in deaths, in Palestine.
I want to reiterate that Israel restrained itself over the past eight years by not responding much earlier with a similar military operation. In spite of the fact that more than 8,000 rockets being fired at Israeli civilians, terrorising them and making the lives of close to a million Israelis unbearable and despite the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. We tried other ways but they failed.
There seems to be a belief that Israel can do anything it likes to people in Palestine – that they have no rights at all?
Absolutely not true. This is an absolutely ridiculous claim. Israel is doing its utmost to keep the balance between its security needs, protecting the right to life of Israeli civilians, and the aspirations and rights of the Palestinians. This is a difficult balance. Palestinians in the West Bank have the right to appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court, which has ruled many times in their favor.
But isn’t Israel using excessive force?
What exactly is proportional force? Would you say that firing back 8,000 rockets would be proportional? Proportionality cannot be taken as one for one, because obviously you would not expect us to fire back 8,000 missiles and rockets. I think proportionality means how much force you have to use to put an end to the threat and suffering; doing your utmost to minimise civilian casualties. This is exactly what we have done. We have done what is humanly possible to minimise civilian casualties.
The entire premise of your defence of Israel’s policy seems to be: because they are killing civilians, we are entitled to kill them too, and in far greater numbers? If you were to express Israel’s policy in simple terms, is it not: if you kill ten of our citizens, we’ll kill 200 of yours.
No. I resent this absurd allegation. To suggest such a policy exists is absurd. The Palestinians are not our enemy. To suggest that Israel’s military operation is motivated by revenge is false. The aim and the purpose of this operation was not to kill Palestinian civilians but to protect Israeli civilians. As I said before, Israel’s motivation was not revenge as you falsely describe but to protect its civilians. Do you think that over 1,100 Israelis killed since 2000 is a small number?
In what way has Israel attempted to minimise civilian casualties?
Dropping millions of leaflets – warning the civilians to leave early because they are in proximity of Hamas installations and munitions depots and so on. Making tens of thousands of telephone calls. Broadcasting on the radio so the message got to the people: ‘You have to leave the area for your safety’. Unfortunately, in the time of war accidents happen. Like in any war, accidents happened in this war.
But despite all these forewarnings you speak about, droves of civilians still perished in this conflict. Did or did not Israel target civilian premises?
This is tragic, but Israel did not deliberately target civilians – never. Israel did not deliberately target any civilian installations or any civilian home. I gave you just a few examples of what it means to do what is humanly possible to minimise civilian casualties. I want to share this information with you: in briefings pilots had – prior to their mission – a significant part of the discussion is what to do and how to do it to minimise civilian casualties; to avoid civilian casualties. Sometimes certain missions were aborted if the idea was that the result is too many civilian casualties
Surely there were still too many casualties. The latest figures, I think, show that 1,285 Palestinians killed, which included 280 children.
First of all, the numbers are based on Hamas sources and, obviously, they are biased. Secondly, any time a civilian is killed – whether Israeli or Palestinian – it is tragic. We are sorry for that and our leaders expressed their sorrow for it and I have tried to explain what we have done to minimise it.
The suggestion that you are ‘sorry’ that civilians have died rings hollow.
I don’t understand why you think so. As a strong supporter of the peace process with the Palestinians and, as a father myself, when I say sorry it is a sincere feeling, a sincere expression and certainly not just a formal or politically correct answer. It was the hope for peace that led us to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, to allow the Palestinians build their own state, and the terror of Hamas that forced this war upon us. Speaking of feelings, many in the region are very angry at Hamas for being responsible for so much suffering.
You’re saying the death toll figures are wrong?
Yes, I’ll not take the figures as is because they rely on Hamas sources. But there is a famous case of the UNRWA school when even UNRWA now admits that the shell did not hit the school, but the vicinity of the school. A report now says that two-thirds of the Gaza dead were either Hamas fighters or connected to Hamas, ie police etc. (It’s a) densely populated area. Another reason (for civilian casualties) is the Hamas tactic of human shields; of first of all firing from within civilian areas; secondly, positioning their rockets, and firing from the balconies of homes – and there is now clear evidence of this. Witnesses have testified to Hamas using mosques and schools – even hospitals – as places to store ammunition, missiles, (and) from where to fire, assuming that Israel will be reluctant to attack because of our values and our way of conducting war. But Israeli forces – whenever fired upon – had to return fire and there have been a few tragic accidents. For example, friendly fire killed half of the Israeli soldiers who perished.
Mary O’Rourke TD recently stated that what Israel was doing in Gaza amounts to mass-murder with men, women and children being mowed down.
With all due respect, I do not accept what she says. She’s wrong. I tried to explain the logic of Israel’s military operation is to put an end to the suffering of a million Israelis who had to live in shelters or the proximity of shelters. I’m sure that if people living in her district were subjected to 8,000 rockets and missiles, she would have demanded the government to do something about it.
What about the allegations that white phosphorus, which is a glorified chemical weapon, has been used in Israeli attacks on Palestine?
Israel did not use any illegal weapon in this operation. Any weapon that was used by Israel was within international law. The President of the International Red Cross. Jacob Kellenberger. clearly said there was no evidence of any illegal use of phosphorus by Israel during this war. He clearly said in an interview with the New York Times that there was no use of any illegal weapon in the Israeli military operation in Gaza. We have done our utmost to minimise civilian casualties and Israel’s military operation has to be compared to how other armies conducted their wars.
What wars?
I’m not speaking about the wars of even 50/60 years ago, but the nature of the operation in Afghanistan, or the war in Iraq, what happened in Yugoslavia. Israel should not be singled out in the way it has been criticised for the way it conducted this war. It was fought under very difficult circumstances: a very densely populated area; an opponent – which is a terrorist organisation – that uses the tactic of human shields cynically, in a cruel way. These are the circumstances. War crimes were committed by Hamas by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians for eight years and by using the civilian population of Gaza as a human shield.
Are you not creating a vicious circle: if innocent people in Palestine die, it makes the next generation vengeful, and the violence will continue?
It’s not exactly a vicious circle. You have to be careful not to confuse cause and effect. We always kept saying, if there will be no rockets and missiles fired on Israeli civilians, there will be no reason for Israel to go into military operation. So, the Israeli military operation is in response to the rockets being fired. We have shown restraint. It was Hamas who decided to put an end to the period of calm. We withdrew from Gaza. Prime Minister Sharon withdrew from Gaza in 2005 completely – to the internationally recognised border – and pulled out all our troops; all our military installations; 17 Jewish settlements were demolished. It was something that domestically was very difficult to do. It was a very courageous move – done unilaterally for the sake of peace. The expectation was in Israel: ‘Here, we withdrew from Gaza; you have your chance – start building your future State’. And what did we get in response? More rockets, more mortar fire. This was a very bitter pill to swallow. So, when you try to say a vicious circle I’m trying to put it in a different chronological order.
The point I was making was that if Palestinians today had family members killed by these Israeli attacks, they are going to grow up with more hatred towards Israel. How can this be stopped?
There are indications that Hamas is not gaining support and popularity as a result of what happened. I believe when the people of Gaza realise that the destruction and misery that Hamas brought on them, Hamas will lose significantly in terms of support and popularity so this will not increase the power of Hamas. Actually, there is a poll that I saw yesterday that indicated already a significant decrease in the political support for Hamas. The way out is to continue with the peace negotiations, with the negotiations that we’ve been engaged in with moderate Palestinians, with the President of the Palestinian Authority, on the core issues of this conflict. The vision is and the ultimate goal is, again, two States for two peoples, co-existence; compromise; reconciliation; dealing with future borders; with security issues; water; the future of the issue of refugees. All the issues are on the table. Actually, there has been some progress in the negotiations. The issues are very complex, the gaps are very wide, but there is no alternative. We have to be determined and believe in peace. There are no quick fixes. You cannot expect miraculous overnight solutions. The road is long and difficult, but it can be achieved. There is hope. In the Holy Land if you don’t believe in miracles, you are not a realist.
There’s a theory that Mossad created Hamas in order to crush the PLO?
I don’t think Hamas is the creation of anybody in Israel. Hamas is the creation of part of the overall radicalisation of the Arab world and this is the local expression of this radicalisation. It is a radical Islamist movement – a terrorist organisation – and I don’t think it has to do with anything Israel did or did not do.
Israel claims there is evidence that Iran is facilitating Hamas.
Clear evidence. Hamas is actually being supported politically and militarily by Iran. We know that some of the missiles – the Grad missiles – were supplied by Iran. Iran is against the peace process in the Middle East. Iran calls for Israel’s destruction. Iran claims the Holocaust never existed. Iran supports international terrorism. This is the message that I want to convey here: that we live in a tough neighbourhood, much tougher than yours. We live in a very tough neighbourhood, where sometimes in order to protect our very existence, we have had to fight, to use force and defend ourselves time after time. There is no other country – mention to me one other country – whose very existence is being questioned by another country. There isn’t any. Israel is the only country today that there is another member of the United Nations openly calling for its destruction. So, this is the neighbourhood in which we live. So, before criticising or commenting on the Middle East, it is important to take into consideration our unique circumstances; our history; our geography; our strategic circumstances; and the type of the neighbourhood in which we live.
If you have proof that Iran supplied weapons to Hamas, why haven’t you’ve retaliated against Iran?
This is a totally different matter.
Why hasn’t it been considered?
This is something else. Nobody is talking about military (action); our concern with Iran is that we hope that economic and diplomatic sanctions – stronger and much tougher by the international community – will force Iran to stop its enrichment of uranium and its effort to develop nuclear weapons. This is what we are mainly concerned with regarding Iran.
You’re suggesting that more stringent sanctions be brought against Iran?
Iran today is the greatest danger to world peace, not just to the Middle East. The international community has to be united, more determined and to impose much stronger and broader sanctions on Iran, so it stops its nuclear programme. At the same time, the Iranians are making every effort to develop long range missiles. Our concern is this combination of extreme ideology, the development of nuclear weapons and the development of long range missiles. Together with the objection to the very existence of the State of Israel, this is why we see Iran as a major threat not only to Israel but to the Middle East generally and to world peace.
On Iran being the biggest threat to world peace: there are people who would say exactly the same thing about Israel?
How could you possibly compare Israel to Iran? Ask yourself which is the real threat to peace? Israel, a liberal democracy with freedom of press, freedom of speech, equal rights to women and minorities, or Iran where homosexuals are being stoned to death, a dress code is imposed on women, people have no right to speak their mind, a regime that objects to all liberal values. Iran which calls for the destruction of Israel, which denies the Holocaust, supports international terrorism, objects to the peace process, which continues to develop nuclear weapons.
The lack of a free corridor is being heavily criticised. Palestinians are finding it very difficult to even turn up to their jobs on time.
We made every effort to keep the balance between security requirements and the needs of the Palestinians, to interrupt their lives as little as possible. Also, in some cases, the Supreme Court intervened and – as a result of the rulings by Israel’s Supreme Court – the army had to change the route of the fence. Anytime Palestinians appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides that the fence is not going where it should according to security needs – or unnecessarily interferes with the lives of the Palestinians – then the military change the route. The security fence is very important because it saves lives.
The argument now is that this security measure is excessive?
I think arrangements are being made so interference with the daily lives of Palestinians is minimal. But you have to strike a delicate balance between the right to life of Israelis – the right to live without the threat of suicide bombers – and to what degree you inconvenience Palestinians. I invite you to come and visit and see for yourself how far the military goes in making every effort that life, daily life, for farmers, for ordinary people – Palestinians – is not interrupted. And if it is interrupted, that the interruption will be minimal.
But it is far from minimal.
One of the main reasons why we managed to reduce suicide bombings to almost nil is a result of the security fence. Over 1,100 Israelis were killed as a result of suicide bombings – buses exploded in downtown Jerusalem in cafes, supermarkets, shopping malls. Life was very difficult during the years of suicide bombings, especially the years 1995-1996 and 2001-2002. So, the aim of the security fence was to deal with it. It was a defensive measure, to deal with the phenomenon of suicide bombings... of Palestinians crossing into Israel and blowing themselves up. So those who criticise us here for building the fence need to put themselves in our place – what would you have done if you were living under similar circumstances?
A recent RTÉ online opinion poll showed that 50% believe that Israel should be indicted for war crimes, with 47% against.
I strongly protested this poll to the executives of RTÉ. If I’m not mistaken, RTÉ decided to pull this poll immediately. RTÉ acknowledged that the poll was biased because Hamas was not included in it. Even with the slanted way the question was asked, you see the results. The way the poll was phrased was slanted so as to invite condemnation of Israel. I expressed our disappointment to RTÉ that such a poll was run, especially when RTÉ has never done a poll inviting condemnation of Hamas for its definite and blatant war crimes against Israel and its well publicised oppression of Palestinians in Gaza. Another way of looking at it is that almost as many voters in the poll thought that Israel should not be indicted. But speaking on the issues of allegations of war crimes, all the allegations are based on half-truths and rumours. No serious international body came up with any evidence of war crimes.
What’s your view of the Irish media’s treatment of the conflict?
I think there has been strong criticism of Israel in the Irish media, which is not always fair – too much relying on Hamas sources without trying to corroborate it with the other side. There is much misinformation and misconception. I think criticism of any country, including Israel, is legitimate, but sometimes when this criticism crosses the line – like the comparison of Israeli actions to that of Nazi Germany, or calling my speech Goebbels propaganda. I think this is when it crosses the line. It’s very important whenever and wherever there is a report on the Middle East that the two sides will be presented. If there is a claim made about what the reporter sees or hears in Gaza, about some allegations against Israel, give the Israeli side opportunity to answer. We cannot present only one side of the story. It is not black and white; there are two sides to this story. So, this is something that has sometimes been missing in the Irish media.
You say there is fair criticism.
By fair criticism, I mean it is legitimate to criticise Israel, to claim one thing or another, but you have to get a comment or reaction from the Israeli side. A principle of fair journalism means when you write a story and you bring allegations against one side, it is fair and important to hear the reaction and the response and the comment from the other side.
You wrote an opinion piece in The Irish Times before Christmas, defending the Israeli stance. Afterwards some letter writers accused you of spinning and lying.
I tell the truth. Sometimes it may not be convenient for others. I’m doing my utmost here to represent the Israeli case honestly and truthfully, to balance the many false accusations and much misinformation and many misconceptions here against Israel.
Does it infuriate you that the Irish are obviously very pro-Palestinian?
It is frustrating, but we’ve been doing our best to try and balance it by presenting our case. I think the majority of the Irish people understand that this was a war of self-defence, that Israel had a right to defend itself. The right to self-defence is a cornerstone of international law. The criticism that we have is mainly about the number of civilian casualties. Nobody questions our right to protect ourselves. The criticism was more focused on what you called comparing the numbers.
Do you think Irish people are anti-Semitic?
I don’t think so. There have been a few comments that came from prejudice and misunderstanding from people who were misinformed but I will not get into generalisations. We have received some hate mail but also some expressions of support.
The Irish government has also voiced criticism in recent months?
As for the Irish government position, I have respect for Minister Michael Martin. But, obviously we differ in our views on the issue and I have expressed this through appropriate diplomatic channels. While there has been criticism in Ireland, there has also been support and expressions of sympathy and understanding for Israel’s position. Criticism of Israel, as of any country, is of course legitimate. But when criticism crosses the line – when some journalists and an Irish TD compare Israel to Nazi Germany – this is not legitimate. Such comments come from total lack of understanding and knowledge of the Middle East, European and Jewish history, and also from a degree of prejudice. The accidental death of civilians in a military operation, however tragic and regrettable, cannot be remotely compared to 6 million Jews being systematically murdered.
You say: “The accidental death of civilians in a military operation, however tragic and regrettable, cannot be remotely compared to 6 million Jews being systematically murdered.” But surely you can’t drag the Holocaust up and use that as an excuse for any current conflict?
This is insulting. I’m not using it as an excuse for anything. The Holocaust is universally recognised as a unique event in human history, unlike and unparalleled to any other event. A genocide against the Jewish people, a systematic annihilation of the Jewish people. You cannot compare that in any form or shape to any military conflict and certainly not to the current conflict. Certain Irish commentators seem to feel comfortable with the stereotype of the Jewish people as victims, but become outraged when they act to defend themselves.
Did it annoy you that shops here boycotted Israeli produce?
The whole idea of a boycott is counter-productive. It’s like shooting yourself in the leg – during times of economic difficulty and unemployment – to call for a boycott of another trade partner, as it may mean the loss of many jobs. The trade between Israel and Ireland is important, not just to Israel but to Ireland as well. It’s not just counterproductive economically, but it also doesn’t contribute anything to peace. If the idea of these people is to single out Israel and call for an economic boycott – to contribute in any way to peace – they are wrong. It shows a total misunderstanding of Israel’s policy. The way to contribute to peace is to encourage more dialogue, people to people contact, between Israelis and Palestinians, rather than call for a boycott. Because of Ireland and Israel being two hi-tech sophisticated economies, the similarities also created many opportunities for cooperation. Without getting into details, Israel created hundreds of jobs here, as a result of this cooperation in hi-tech, so I really don’t understand the calls – especially from some in the trade unions here – for a boycott. I thought their job is to promote the creation of more jobs here. A boycott would lead to many Irish jobs being lost. This would only exacerbate an already bad economic climate.
Has there ever been a threat on your own life?
No, but there was the famous incident in Galway University! There was some violence, but…
What went through your mind when angry students tried to attack you?
I was surprised that this was the reaction of students because free expression is a foundation of democracy and free and honest debate. There was some violence there, but nothing serious. It really didn’t bother me a lot.
Speaking about Galway University, the Holocaust denier David Irving is planning to give a lecture there in March. Should he be allowed such a platform?
I don’t think he deserves an opportunity to express his hate-filled message. He is somebody who denies the Holocaust; somebody who has a total misunderstanding of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, the magnitude of the Holocaust, the fact that six million Jews were murdered by the German Nazis for one simple reason: they were Jewish. So, any attempt to deny this, which is a historical fact – a genocide against the Jewish people – is despicable.
But some would argue that he’s entitled to freedom of speech?
But also there must be some limit. Denial of the Holocaust in certain places is a crime. Denial of the Holocaust comes from ignorance, hate and prejudice.
Do you think that Obama as US president will have any significance in the Middle East and particularly in the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
The support for Israel in America is bi-partisan, whether Republican or Democrat. The relationships are strong and based on not only shared values but on strategic interests. He decided to send Senator Mitchell to the region, which shows he wants to be engaged immediately in the process and, of course, we will work with Senator Mitchell. The goal is to resume the peace negotiations with the Palestinians and achieve the desired peace.
Can Mitchell make a difference?
It is important that a special envoy to the Middle East was appointed at the very beginning of the Obama presidency. It is a testimony to how committed President Obama is to helping achieve a comprehensive peace. George Mitchell is highly respected for his vast experience, his skills and patience, particularly because of his work in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. However, a word of caution is needed. Too often Irish commentators say that the Northern Ireland analogy fits the Middle East. This is not so.
Why do you maintain that?
They are very different conflicts. The historical, religious, cultural, geographical divide in the Middle East is far deeper, far broader than the conflict in Northern Ireland ever was. Also, Hamas is not the IRA. The IRA never called for the elimination of Britain itself; the destruction of the British people; the takeover of Britain by the IRA. Any comparison between the IRA and Hamas is simplistic. Hamas refuses to even recognise Israel’s right to exist. Another difference is that in the case of Northern Ireland, all the external parties – the US, the EU, the British and Irish governments – wanted peace, whereas in the Israeli-Palestinian situation some external parties – Iran, Hizbullah – continually thwart the path of peace. However, we remain optimistic. I don’t think that people here realise how big the desire is in Israel for peace. How much peace is the dream for every Israeli. Peace is something that we want – more than anything else. We want to live in peace with our Palestinian neighbours. The Palestinian people are our neighbours, they are not our enemy. Our enemy is Hamas.