Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Sep 2023

Vol. 1043 No. 1

Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions

Middle East

Patrick Costello

Ceist:

5. Deputy Patrick Costello asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs following his recent trip to the Middle East, if he believes that a two-state solution is still possible, and what steps Ireland will take individually and at a European level to realise a two-state solution in the face of continued breaches of international law by Israel, ongoing illegal settlement building and expansion, forcible transfer of the Palestinian population by Israel and escalating settler violence with government support. [41757/23]

The first part of my question has been answered with regard to whether the two-state solution is possible. For me there is frustration. Why do we continually allow Israel to commit vast numbers of war crimes and breaches of international law with complete impunity?

In my engagements with the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer and the Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, I underlined that Ireland’s approach is grounded in respect for international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law, and that the fundamentals of our position are based on internationally agreed parameters and successive UN resolutions. I raised all of the issues referenced in the Deputy’s question in my political meetings in Israel and emphasised the serious concerns of the Government.

In terms of follow-up, at a political level, as noted in my replies to earlier parliamentary questions, I welcome the Peace Day initiative launched by the EU in partnership with the League of Arab States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. I spoke at the launch of this initiative during the UN high level week in New York last Monday and committed that Ireland would engage actively in the follow-up meetings that are envisaged in the coming months. I also discussed the issue with a wide range of Arab and European Ministers during my time in New York, including at a working dinner hosted by the International Peace Institute. I will continue to work with like-minded partners to ensure a sustained focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at EU and international level.

In July, Ireland submitted a statement to the International Court of Justice regarding the advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. The statement provided Ireland's legal analysis of these policies and practices.

It is also important that we support voices and organisations that promote peace and reconciliation from the ground up. My programme in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory included several meetings with members of civil society. In the city of Lod, for example, I engaged with local political representatives from both the Jewish and Arab Israeli communities, some of whom had recently visited Belfast to share lessons and experiences.

While the current political context does not give rise to optimism in the short term, my firm view is that a two-state solution is still possible but would require a significant change in policy direction, particularly in respect of the Israeli Government. I remain convinced that Ireland has much to offer in restoring a pathway towards meaningful dialogue between the Israeli and Palestinian people and a political horizon towards a two-state solution.

I thank the Tánaiste. I find his language quite diplomatic, which is perhaps appropriate given his position, but I tend to agree with Deputy Gannon that we should call things what they are. In the question I have mentioned settlement building, settlement expansion, state-supported settler violence, demolitions and the forced transfer of Palestinian populations. What we are witnessing is Israel deliberately inflicting on Palestinians actions and conditions of life designed to destroy them within the West Bank. They are designed to destroy Palestinian communities in the West Bank. We need to call these out. To call them negative trends or say they are not giving rise to optimism is overly soft. We need to call them out. If we compare and contrast the response to Russian aggression and Russian war crimes to Israel's continued impunity in breaching international law we see quite a stark contrast. This is a frustration for many Deputies when we see international law being held up and given teeth with actions and concrete responses towards some states but not towards Israel, which continues to inflict these horrendous war crimes.

That is an unfair and incorrect assessment of it. Ireland has called it out. As Minister I have called out the actions in terms of expansions of settlements. We have repeatedly called it out at all international forums. We have submitted a very comprehensive statement to the International Court of Justice regarding the advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.

It is quite a substantive and robust submission, and it is now at the discretion of the court as to whether it publishes that and the various submissions. We are very clear on calling out what is unacceptable behaviour. When I meet with other leaders across the world, some African leaders will say this about Europe in terms of consistency in respect of Ukraine and Palestine, but they check themselves. They cannot say that to Ireland because we are consistent on territorial integrity, sovereignty and human rights, and we are perceived to be. They may say it to others, because other countries might have different backgrounds and history in respect of their presence and engagement with Africa, for example, because there has been a big debate in the context of Ukraine. When we engage with African leaders and interlocutors in respect of support or otherwise for Ukraine or, indeed, tolerance of Russian aggression, the Irish position is very clear: Russia violated the UN charter. Its invasion is illegal and immoral. Our view is that Israel’s behaviour in respect of the occupied territories violates the United Nations resolutions, which we have been very clear about, and international law.

I would highlight the difference between calling out and action. We have certainly taken much action in terms of economic sanctions against Russia that we have not against Israel. If we are supporting international law, let me ask this question. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, conference is happening now. Israel is well known to have nuclear weapons. The Department of Foreign Affairs is rightly proud of its record with regard to non-proliferation and its work in that regard. There are two motions from the Jordanians at this conference. One is around calling out Israeli nuclear weapons and calling for IAEA inspections. Will we support that? That is in keeping international law. Will we support the Jordanian motion with regard to the position of Palestine? If we are to not recognise Palestine but support it as a state and support the two-state solution, we should be ensuring it has full participation in international bodies. Are we going to support international law with regard to non-proliferation in nuclear weapons?

My understanding is that the Government is ably represented at the IAEA by the Minister, Deputy Ryan. I am sure he will take the appropriate positions on all the various issues that will be on the agenda.

Will they listen to him?

We work very closely with Jordan, however, and we share a very common position. I believe the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Safadi, is very exercised by the entire situation. He has worked very hard and diligently, particularly at the Aqaba summit and Sharm el-Sheikh summit, to try to de-escalate the situation of recent times and the escalation of secular violence and so on. Israel has not followed through on the commitments it signed off on at Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh. We work closely with Jordan in respect of these issues.

My fundamental position is that Europe, and Israel, in terms of having an intelligent approach to this, should support moderation within Palestine and should enable, along with European partners, greater capacity for the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority has challenges as well. There has not been an election there for many years, which is problematic if the truth be told. That is why we will continue to support civil society organisations within the occupied territories and within Israel.

Middle East

Gary Gannon

Ceist:

6. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs when the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 will be examined on Committee Stage. [41910/23]

My question pertains to the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, but it is really in reference to any action at all. I am really asking about whether we can advance the occupied territories Bill. What can we actually do in terms of providing sanction?

As I have stated on several occasions in this House, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 would not be compatible with European Union law and would not be implementable. This is the clear legal advice on this matter. The Government will, therefore, not be taking it forward.

Ireland’s resolute opposition to illegal Israeli settlements is firmly grounded in international law. To adopt a unilateral approach that runs contrary to legal advice would undermine Ireland’s clear and principled stance on this issue as well as our broader promotion of compliance with international law at the United Nations and other international organisations.

The European Union reiterated its overriding policy of differentiation at the EU-Israel Association Council in October 2022. All agreements between the State of Israel and the European Union must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territory occupied by Israel in 1967. Ireland is vocal in ensuring this policy is applied consistently across all sectors of co-operation.

As regards trade, European Union law and guidelines on goods from settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory clearly differentiate between settlements on the one hand and Israel on the other. These guidelines were updated in May 2023, increasing the burden of proof on importers and economic operators involved in imports into the European Union of products originating in Israel. These guidelines are an important part of the European Union contribution to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, and Ireland remains vigilant in ensuring their full and consistent implementation. Ireland applies a whole-of-government approach to this policy of differentiation, and my Department ensures there is information available for the public and companies regarding Ireland's policy on differentiation between Israel and the occupied territories on its website. Furthermore, the Government’s position on the illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory informs our engagement with Israel across a range of bilateral issues, including my meetings with my political counterparts during my recent visit to Israel.

I am conscious, however, that when Deputy Brady brought forward the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023 around the withdrawal of investment through State investment funds in occupied territories in Israel, the Government did not advance it just a couple of months ago.

It was the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, who brought in the comparison between our response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and said we have been consistent when it comes to the territorial expansion between condemning Russia's occupation of Ukraine and condemning territorial expansion in the West Bank forced upon the Palestinians by the Israelis. However, we have not when it comes to economic sanction. We have diverged completely. We offer rhetoric without anything behind it. That is where the frustration is for those of us who do not for a second disagree with any of the rhetoric. We have felt a very strong line but we have been completely weak when it comes to action. Therefore, when we talk about the Minister's belief in continuing the two-state solution, we would all, of course, love to see a two-state solution-----

I thank the Deputy.

-----but I believe the meekness of the EU, in particular-----

Time is up, please.

-----has led to that coming further and further away.

We have taken action in terms of the differentiation between Israel and illegal settlements in terms of the importation of goods. That is law, and we work to enforce that. On the divestment Bill, as the Deputy knows, there was a timed amendment in relation to that. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McGrath, is dealing with that because it seeks to amend the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, Acts, as the Deputy knows. It is a complex issue to resolve but we are going to do it. Therefore, we wanted to allow appropriate time to consider the implications of that Private Member's Bill to explore possible ways to proceed. We proposed a nine-month timed amendment. That gives us the time to consider the intent of the Bill, including consideration of alternative non-legislative based approaches or a combination of legislative and non-legislative based approaches, which would achieve the outcome we want in respect of that particular Bill. As I said earlier, this conflict-----

I thank the Minister; time is up.

-----is of a long duration, but we have been very clear in respect of action.

We will be coming back to the Minister.

I welcome the Minister's commitments to revisiting the Bill that was brought forward by Deputy Brady. Is that a commitment? Should we see some tangible action from that within the next three months, which I believe is when the timeframe is up? Should we see some tangible action on that by this time next year, for example, by the summer recess? When would the Minister foresee actual action coming from that Bill?

The Minister to conclude.

We gave it a nine-month timed amendment.

We have had them before.

I beg your pardon?

We have had nine-month time limits before.

We cannot have a back-and-forth.

The Deputy asked me a question so I will respond. It is nine months, so it is within that period. Certainly, we will have to come back to the Oireachtas with clear responses then at that stage.

That concludes that question.

Barr
Roinn