I will be brief because I want to get onto the meat of the debate, services. I will re-emphasise the point I made on Committee Stage. Section 5(1) of the Bill is very clear - there is no exemption that deals with this in terms of subsection (2) - and states that the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited. It is written very clearly. In the case of a Palestinian farmer in one of the postal codes in the Bill, according to any reasonable reading of the law, the importation of the goods from the postal code to which the Act applies is prohibited. The legislation does not specify whether it is being done through the EU-Israel Association Agreement rather than via another method. It refers to the importation of goods from the postal codes being prohibited. I accept it is not the intention of the Government to do this but I do find it strange. We were told on Committee Stage that the provision would be interpreted in the context of the full Long Title and that, therefore, it is about the illegal occupied territories and so on. It seems strange to me to argue that when we have a much neater way of doing things, as outlined in the amendment and as has been done by a series of other countries in Europe.

Sentiment score: 0.02

I remember well the debate on RTÉ during the general election where it was kind of a quick-fire question, "Will you implement the occupied territories Bill?" With no hesitation, Micheál Martin and Simon Harris said yes. There was also then someone with a camera phone who went and talked to Simon Harris in a café and asked him if he would implement the occupied territories Bill and he said, "Oh yes, no question, no ifs or buts. This is an absolute priority for me." We had one promise made to the public during a general election and now that promise is effectively being abandoned. The occupied territories Bill, which everyone understood to mean goods and services, is now being gutted to remove the majority of trade. We know that on average, 70% of trade is in services rather than goods and that 70% is now being removed. Why is that happening? We might get an answer and we might not. We never know which arguments we will get, but we might get some legal arguments today which are utterly spurious and empty. If I get time I will go through it. The reason they are so spurious and empty is because this is not about the law. There is an interesting tension between how Micheál Martin describes it and how Simon Harris describes it. Simon Harris says that he is on the side of the people and would love to do it but cannot legally, but then cannot explain why legally he cannot, whereas Micheál Martin comes out and says the truth, which is that we do not want to damage our relations with US corporations. That is the truth. We have suspended independent foreign policy for the benefit of US multinational corporations and for fear of offending Donald Trump. That is what is happening here. There is no clearer example of this than what was revealed by The Ditch. The then US ambassador, Claire Cronin, contacted the Taoiseach saying there would be consequences for US companies in Ireland if the Bill proceeded. Hours after that, the then Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, announced the Bill would be shelved for review. This directly contradicted the Attorney General's advice that amendments were sufficient. That is what this has always been about; an Irish Government that has been triangulating between public opinion and the movement for Palestinian solidarity, which has put it under tremendous pressure, and then the wishes of the US Administration and US corporations. The Government's way of dealing with it is to say it is doing it, and try to send a signal to the movement and to popular opinion that it is taking action, while simultaneously saying to US companies, "Don't worry, none of you are actually going to be affected by this. It is not actually going to be in any way significant." It is really shameful to put the interests of Donald Trump and big US multinationals before public opinion, before promises made before the general election and before, most importantly, standing up against apartheid, genocide and the reality of what this Israeli State is and what these occupied territories are about. What does this mean in real terms? It means even after this Bill is passed and implemented, assuming that the Government is going to reject all of our amendments, people in Ireland will still be able to go onto Airbnb and see advertised a "warm and lovely community settlement" in an Israeli settler village, Tekoa, with no mention of course of the violence against the Palestinian village of Tuqu', and no mention of the dispossession that has taken place and the violence that continues to maintain this "warm and lovely community settlement." It means Booking.com will be able to continue to list settlement properties in the West Bank. From 2018 to 2020, they tripled from 26 to 70. It tripled its East Jerusalem listings to 39 in the year before October 2023. There is the continuation of potentially buying good in terms of Amazon. We know that in 2020 Amazon was found to be offering free shipping to illegal settlements but not to their Palestinian neighbours in the West Bank. Multinational corporations here, or with operations here that trade with the settlements include Airbnb, Etsy, BNP Paribas, HSBC, Barclays, Motorola, RE/MAX Holdings and Booking.com. All these companies and all this trade is going to be able to continue. It fundamentally contradicts the Government's own position, which is that it could not do anything until the ICJ ruling. The ICJ ruling changes everything because it says that all states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. For the Government's legal argument, that is the turning point. The problem with the Government's argument is that the ICJ ruling makes no distinction between goods and services. Later on, the Government suggested that there is some sort of distinction here in terms of the public policy exemption and that somehow this only applies to goods and not to services even though all the legal experts, even those who disagree with this Bill, all agree that such a distinction is absolute nonsense. The public policy exemption either applies to both or applies to neither. The result is the Government has got itself into this position whereby it is going to implement law, supposedly to bring us in line with the ICJ ruling, but which it acknowledges is not actually going to bring us into compliance with international law. I thought a particular engagement at the committee between Deputy Ó Laoghaire and the Minister was really interesting. Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked her, "Is she ultimately accepting that [with this Bill] Ireland would not be in full compliance with the ICJ judgment?" The Minister replied, "I have said very clearly that this would go towards compliance, but the two-pronged approach is absolutely what would make us fully compliant". The Minister went on to say, "We are working and taking actions to be fully compliant. The intention is to be fully compliant, not partially compliant." Being partially compliant with international law is a little like being a little bit pregnant. We are either in breach of international law or we are in compliance with it. The Government is proposing a Bill supposedly predicated on the ICJ ruling, which is going to continue to have us in breach of international law because we are going to continue to allow trade in services with these illegally occupied territories. It goes back to the fundamental point that none of the legal arguments here make any sense whatsoever. This is all about politics and US interests. It is shameful that those interests are being put first, and for me it underlines the fact that we need to continue to mobilise and to continue to pressure for services to be included even after this Bill. More fundamentally, it is not just the illegally occupied territories that we should be stopping trade with. We should be stopping trade with the entire apartheid, genocidal State of Israel. The idea that we continue to trade with such a state after almost three years of genocide is obviously horrendous.

Sentiment score: 0.00

The Minister of State made a point of saying that the ICJ does not require member states to do anything. Therefore, it is up to member states how they chose to act and whether they make a distinction between goods and services. In the regulatory impact analysis from the Minister of State’s Department, it stated that, "The only reasonable reading of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required". The Minister accepted that on Committee Stage and, like the Minister of State, used phrases like "This Bill is moving us towards compliance" and "With this Bill, we will be partially compliant". All of that is an acceptance that we will not be in compliance with this Bill. We are either in compliance with international law or we are not. To emphasise the point made by other Members, this raises the question over the constitutionality of what the Government is doing here. Article 29.3 of the Constitution commits Ireland to accepting the principles of international law "... as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States." Yet, the Government is introducing a Bill that it acknowledges will not bring Ireland into compliance with international law. Far from being one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy, as the Department of foreign affairs puts it, we are actually going against it. We are saying that we have to do this to be in compliance with international law but it does not suit us politically to do that as this stage. Therefore, the Government’s official line is that we will become partially compliant and that people do not need to worry because the EU will do the meaningful thing later down the line. However, as everyone knows, that will not happen in a short period of time. That is just kicking the can down the road where it is not going to move forward because the political establishments in many other European counties are far closer and sympathetic to Israel than our Government.

Sentiment score: 0.19

I support this amendment and our similar amendment No. 4, which substitutes "may" with "shall". In theory, and I accept this is not the intention of the Government, and for the benefit of the public, it is true that we could pass this Bill and it could become law. However, if there was an election, resulting in an even worse Government if it is possible to conceive of that, a Minister could decide not to do this. If we are passing a law, let us make it obligatory on the Government to carry it out. As I think this is part of the argument for sanctions on Israel, I want to take a moment to mention, as Deputy Coppinger did, the condition of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya. People will remember him. His only crime was not to abandon his patients during the genocide. The reports from a couple of days ago on his condition are absolutely horrifying. He has suffered months of torture, solitary confinement, starvation and the withholding of essential medicines. His lawyer visited him on Thursday last and said he did not recognise him. His face was battered and he could barely speak or breathe. Psychologically, he is being irrevocably damaged. If he survives physically, he will have gone past the point of regaining normal functioning. He told his lawyer he is beaten daily with rods and hammers and that he was brought to this new torture dungeon so they can kill him. In his own words, he said, "This is the last time you will see me." This man is a paediatrician; a children’s doctor. He is being tortured mercilessly for publicly not abandoning his patients to genocide. What encapsulated, concentrated horror. It is important the Irish Government, the State and all of us do everything in our power to call for the immediate release of Dr. Abu Safiya. The healthcare workers and Doctors Against Genocide are talking about taking action next week, which will be really welcome and important in terms of trying to raise international pressure on this issue.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I move amendment No. 16: In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Prohibition on sale or offer for sale in State of certain services 7.(1) It shall be an offence to sell or offer for sale to a person in the State a service provided, or to be provided, in an illegal settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies. (2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding— (i) €125,000, or (ii) where the value of the service concerned, including the duty and tax payable on them, is greater than €250,000, three times that value, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.

Sentiment score: 0.01