Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

A day where we are discussing Europe is an opportunity to talk about what real internationalism should mean. I have little doubt that the majority of people who support and subscribe to the idea of the EU are motivated to do so by a genuine belief in international solidarity and co-operation. They reject a narrow parochial view of our place in the world but believe in genuine internationalism and solidarity with other people across the world.

I do not believe that our sense of international solidarity should somehow end at the borders of the EU. My concern about the EU is that while it undoubtedly captures the desire of the majority of people in this country not to be parochial and to commit to a sense of international solidarity and co-operation, the values and principles of internationalism as espoused by the EU effectively end at the borders of the EU.

Nowhere is that more on display than in the really stark and unacceptable contrast between the attitude to the illegal, brutal, murderous and immoral invasion and occupation of Ukraine as perpetrated by Putin and the equally obnoxious, immoral, brutal, murderous and illegal occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel. What is the difference? One difference is that the criminal invasion and occupation has gone on for a hell of a lot longer in Palestine, although when I say that, I realise there is a long history of conflict between the Russian empire in one guise or another and the people in Ukraine, a very complicated history that I do not have time to go into here. What is clear is how stark the contrast is at the moment.

Last night, 40 Israeli jets bombed Gaza, a place where 2 million people are imprisoned under a siege that by any meaningful definition of international law is criminal and illegal. Israel feels it has the right to send 40 jets over this tiny area and bomb it, killing as reported nine civilians, three of whom were children. That is just the latest in a long line of brutal and murderous military incursions into Gaza as well as the ongoing crime of the siege of Gaza, which itself is a criminal, brutal and murderous act. The international community just sits back and says it is doing nothing about that. Occasionally words of criticism might be murmured but of action, there is none, absolutely zero.

This year has seen the most murderous Israeli military incursions, attacks and raids into Palestinian territory. I believe the entire area is Palestine but even as internationally designated, the attacks from Israel are into lands designated as Palestinian territory. Israel with impunity goes in there day in and day out and week in and week out, murders people and feels its military just has the right to walk into people's villages and towns and shoot and kill people. This is all allowed and there are no sanctions yet representatives of the Government and the EU jump up and down saying we need immediate and urgent action in Ukraine when they are unwilling to do anything in Palestine. What is the difference?

We all know what the difference is. Many European states support Israel with regard to what it is doing. They see it as a strategic ally so when a strategic ally is committing apartheid war crimes against non-Europeans, that is different. That is allowed or we are certainly not going to do anything about it. If there is an illegal invasion or a brutal attack on people who we see as our strategic allies, it is different. A different set of values apply and different consequences will follow.

There is the wider question of militarisation. The Transnational Institute has produced a brilliant report entitled Smoke Screen: How States are Using the War in Ukraine to Drive a New Arms Race. I do not have time to go into it but which I urge people to read it. The facts and figures in the report are pretty amazing. One of the points relates to the main argument that is being used to justify the dramatic increases in military expenditure in Europe in the past couple of years and that is being pushed here at the moment and used as an argument to abandon neutrality. There have already been dramatic increases in military expenditure in the US and NATO countries in the years before the Ukraine war. When you look at the division of expenditure globally, you can see that Russia spends 3% of global military expenditure while Europe spends 12%, NATO spends 57% and the US spends 38%, a figure that is rising. Did all that military hardware make any difference when it came to stopping Putin? It did not make a whit of difference. Arguably it helped provoke the war. This is not to justify it but arguably it has helped provoke it. Is this drive towards militarisation doing anything other than boosting the arms industry and underpinning double standards in international relations and foreign policy?

See this speech in context