A CALL for the Israeli ambassador to be summoned to a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs to explain "very serious allegations" against Irish UNIFIL peacekeepers in Lebanon, was made at a meeting of the committee yesterday.
But following the intervention of the chairman, Mr Alan Shatter (FG), and reservations expressed by Senator David Norris, it was decided to await the views of the Minister for Defence, Mr Barrett, on the Israeli criticisms.
The committee was considering the report of a six member delegation which last month visited Israel and Gaza. Several committee members voiced strong concern at the views expressed by Brig Gen David Tzur, of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) Liaison Unit.
According to the report, the senior Israeli officer claimed that the Irish UNIFIL Battalion did least in southern Lebanon to stop terrorist groups, in a situation where Hizbullah was now better armed.
"He added, moreover, that the Irish battalion sympathised with Hizbullah and effectively sheltered them in their area of operations," the report said.
The Israeli Defence Forces felt the Irish had developed too close a relationship with the local population, the report added. An IDF major accompanying the brigadier general had confirmed that to be the case. "The South Lebanese Army, controlled by the IDF, resented what was seen as a partial stance taken by the Irish battalion.
"The latter continued to make an unprecedented volume of formal complaints about IDF close firing into their area, intended to hit recognised terrorist targets".
The report said the delegation was surprised and concerned at the IDF's serious allegations.
"It was pointed out that the Irish battalion is wholly answerable to the United Nations and that there was no evidence of any complaints from UN Headquarters or the UN General Officer Commanding in the region."
Mr Declan Bree (Lab) said the general's claims were typical of the allegations we have had to put up, with from the Israeli regime.
Irish troops had won worldwide recognition as the most experienced and impartial peacekeepers.
On many occasions in Lebanon they had shown great courage in the face of Israeli provocation. It was outrageous for the Israelis to suggest the Irish peacekeepers were harbouring terrorists, he said.
There were two terrorist groups in the area the South Lebanon Army (SLA) which was funded, armed, trained and directed by the Israeli government and the Hizbullah.
Expressing anger at the allegations, the Sligo Leitrim TD said he came from a part of Ireland that had lost a number of men who had made the ultimate sacrifice on peace keeping duties.
Senator Michael Lanigan (FF) said that the Irish battalion soldiers had been carrying out their duty under the mandate they had been given. They would not be brow beaten by the IDF in the way other UNIFIL contingents bad been in the past. Unfortunately, Irish soldiers had suffered because of their neutrality in south Lebanon. If they had had a stronger mandate the problems there would have been resolved many years ago.
Dr Jim McDaid (FE), said in view of the seriousness of the Israeli claims, that country's ambassador should be summoned before the committee as soon as possible. The committee should make known its concerns.
Disagreeing, Mr Norris said it was a complicated situation. There was an unusually high degree of repeat tours of duty by Irish troops. Inevitably, in a human sense, there was a perception that they had become identified with the local community.
Mr Shatter said part of the difficulty arose out of the mandate given to UNIFIL, which was in effect to keep the peace. The force did not have a proactive role to prevent Hizbullah firing rockets into Israel or to prevent the SLA firing in the opposite direction. The Israeli perception was that the Hizbullah appeared within the Irish battalion zone to be more prone to use it to launch rockets.
He had written to the Minister for Defence asking for his observations on the Israeli views. He felt the committee should also tell the Minister it believed our troops were doing whatever was possible and acting properly according to their mandate. Some concerns had been expressed by members that a proportion of Irish soldiers were frequently on tours of duty in the region and that that could give rise to difficulties. The committee should also get the Minister's observations on this matter.
Mr Shatter suggested it would be premature to ask the Israeli ambassador to address them on these issues without first getting the Minister's views.
The fact that committee members might not like what they were told on an overseas trip was no reason to ask the ambassador to come in and apologise or to repeat what members had already heard.
Dr McDaid reiterated that the ambassador should be asked to give an explanation for criticisms that cast a shadow over the Irish involvement in UNIFIL.