Bertie Ahern's finances and his tax compliance, Noel Grealish's views on the planning tribunal, John Gormley's confidence in same, Enda Kenny's new-found courage in debating Bertie's money are indeed the major issues of the day, writes Vincent Browne
But it may be permissible to avert one's gaze momentarily and focus briefly on a conflict in the Middle East that has threatened peace in a large part of the world. The distraction is prompted by a speech one of Bertie's friends made in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem last Thursday, George Bush.
George said something which I think is momentous in that speech, which, if he meant it and if followed by his successor in the White House, could change world events.
The problem in the Middle East dates back to 1948 when the state of Israel was established on the back of the violent plantation of the lands of Palestine by immigrant Jews. Native Palestinians were driven off their lands by the invaders and that monstrous injustice was instigated by the British and supported by the United States and the Soviet Union, along with most of the world community, aside from the Arab world. That wickedness was founded on a sense of guilt on the part of the "civilised" world that had inflicted discrimination, repression, pogroms and eventually genocide on the Jewish community in many countries in Europe, notably Russia and Germany but elsewhere too.
One hideous injustice gave rise to another hideous injustice.
Inevitably, there was war between the new state and its neighbours and with the people who had been dispossessed of their lands. First in 1948 on the formation of the new state, on May 14th, 1948, and again in 1967 when Israel instigated a pre-emptive strike on Arab forces massing on its borders. In that latter war Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. East Jerusalem was incorporated into the state of Israel, huge settlements of Israelis were established on the West Bank and in Gaza.
The United Nations Security Council demanded the withdrawal of Israel to its previous borders. Israel has defied that demand without repercussions and gradually the world community came to accept that a withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders was "unrealistic".
Over the years peace was established with some of its neighbours, notably Egypt, which resulted in the surrender of the Sinai Peninsula. But conflict with the Palestinian population inside Israel itself and on the West Bank and Gaza continued. There was a further war in 1973 and repeated uprisings, plus interventions in neighbouring Lebanon, from where much of the guerrilla attacks were instigated. Western support for the state of Israel has been seen by many in the Islamic world as "proof" of the antagonism of the West towards Islam. It is one of the propulsions of al-Qaeda and of Islamic "terrorism" generally.
Originally a fair resolution to the conflict would have demanded the dismantling of the state of Israel, the expulsion of the invaders and the return of the Palestinians to their homes. But time and generations change entitlements and a just resolution reformulated itself in terms of Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, the removal of all the settlements on the land of those driven from their holdings in 1948 and before. Israel obdurately refused and was supported in its obduracy by the Americans.
But last Thursday George Bush said right in the middle of Jewish west Jerusalem: "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967." He continued: "The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognised, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent."
I am unaware of any American president saying anything like that since shortly after 1967, nor referring to the land grab in 1967 as "an "occupation", which of course it is, as was the 1947-1948 land grab. No American president ever suggested that Israel should get out of east Jerusalem, for instance, or forfeit all the settlements that were established since 1967 in the West Bank. For that is the import of what George Bush said. And that was the position of the Palestinians at the Camp David negotiations in the last days of the Clinton administration in 2000. Then the Israelis were not prepared to withdraw settlements from all of the West Bank and they were insistent on remaining in most of east Jerusalem.
George Bush did acknowledge that there would have to be a bit of give and take on the borders issue and in relation to east Jerusalem but the principle of Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders was explicit.
He made no reference to the issue of the right of the 1948 refugees to return to their lands but, as time has gone by, this has faded as a key issue and is probably resolvable through reparations.
This could be a breakthrough but the intervening American presidential election between now and any likely agreement may well scuttle the opportunity again.