John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Professor Lynk is more than welcome to the committee. I commend him on the work he has done, not only in compiling this report but over the past six years and for his many reports. His work is highly commendable. He will be a loss. I know his term is for six years and his mandate expires next month. I wish him well. I hope and know it will not be the last we see or hear from him.

The findings of this report, unfortunately, echo the findings of many reports that have been published recently. These include the Amnesty International report. Its representatives were before this committee speaking on its report which had similar findings. There are also reports from Human Rights Watch, Al-Haq and B'Tslem, all with similar findings that the policies Israel operates and perpetrates on the Palestinian people and the Palestinian lands is apartheid.

Professor Lynk's report deals with legalities, definitions and what apartheid actually means. Apartheid is a violation of public international law, a grave violation of human rights and a crime against humanity under international law. The report should have enough evidence for the international community to sit up and listen and take heed of what is being said. The definition of apartheid is the systematic, prolonged and discriminatory treatment by one racial group of another racial group with the intent to control, segregate, oppress and dominate them. Unfortunately, Professor Lynk's report and all the other reports based on evidence come to the natural conclusion, which is what Palestinians have been saying for decades, that the oppression, occupation and annexation is now apartheid.

The evidence is prevalent and clear for everyone to see.

I have a number of questions to ask of Professor Lynk. In his opening statement, he mentioned that Kofi Annan had described the special procedures as the crown jewel of the human rights system. The professor might explain his work in compiling this report and the work he has undertaken in the past six years in gathering the evidence he has presented. He might expand on his visits to the occupied territories and the Gaza Strip. He might also outline his communications with the occupying forces and the assistance they gave him in compiling this report.

The professor's opening statement also dealt with the designation of the six Palestinian civil society and human rights groups. Even in the worst days of apartheid, the South Africans did not go as far as banning human rights or civil society groups. What are the professor's views on the designation of those civil society and human rights groups as terrorist entities? As I see it, this is an attempt to turn out the spotlight that is being shone on the apartheid policies and the brutality of the actions of the illegal occupation being perpetrated by Israel. Why does the professor think Israel has now moved to ban such organisations?

The professor might also touch on the policies we see being put into practice by the Israelis in the West Bank. We know there are now 169 enclaves of disconnected land. There are segregated roads to which only Israelis have access. We know that for Palestinians to travel from one of these enclaves to another, they must go through many Israeli military checkpoints. The professor might give evidence about that issue and what it means to be a Palestinian in the occupied territories and living in one of these enclaves. How do they go about their lives? What are the barriers facing Palestinians living under occupation?

The professor also mentioned the statement made by the Irish ambassador to the UN, which is important. The professor said that was the first time the term "illegal occupation" has been used. What is the significance and importance of that? We know about the occupation, annexation and apartheid. I hope the position of the Irish Government is that it is an illegal occupation. I imagine that is the Government position but we have yet to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or any Government member, using that particular wording. What is the significance and importance of the ambassador's use of that phrase?

The Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports, and the professor's report, adopted evidence-based approaches to all of the investigations that have been carried out into apartheid, based on the yardstick of international human rights law and humanitarian law. That being the case, does the professor believe those who refuse to use the term "apartheid" and refuse to acknowledge that reality could be accused of being negligent, at best, or perhaps even culpable as a result of their denials or inaction? I note in the professor's statement there is criticism of the international community for the many resolutions that have been adopted, not just by the Security Council but also by the General Assembly, and the failure to follow up with action to ensure those resolutions mean something. Ireland was the first EU country to declare the land grab, the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, as annexation. Does that mean anything without the actions to follow through and hold Israel to account? Does that inaction mean the international community is culpable in the apartheid reality in which the Palestinian people are living?

We sit here and consider the three different frames for how we arrive at the issue of apartheid. Last night in the Palestinian territories was similar to many nights that preceded it. Two Palestinian teenagers were shot dead in their homes. Two Palestinian brothers were shot in the legs following an Israeli raid on their shop. I am conscious that as we sit here, Palestinians are still suffering. Palestinians homes are still being demolished. Palestinian schools are also being demolished. Irish aid we give to the Palestinian people is being disrupted, destroyed and demolished. What will it take, in the professor's mind, to force the international community to take action now to tackle head on the crime against humanity that is apartheid?