Professor S. Michael Lynk:

Yes, every year in the spring when I am planning my summer trip to the region, we write a letter to the Israeli permanent mission in Geneva. Every year there is silence; nothing, nada, crickets. Nothing comes back with respect to that. They have never responded to any of the requests for the ability to travel. I am not the only special rapporteur to whom that happens. North Korea does not allow the rapporteur in there. Myanmar does not either. However, other special rapporteurs are allowed into the countries they monitor. Most special rapporteurs who have global mandates are permitted by those countries to visit the countries and to report as favourably, or as critically, as they so wish.

The Deputy’s second question has to do with the six Palestinian civil society organisations. In October they were designated as terrorist organisations by the Israeli Minister of Defence, Benny Gantz. That designation is still hanging like a sword of Damocles. Israel has on two separate occasions assembled a range of documents that it have presented, primarily in Europe. This has been to try to persuade member states with whom it has good relationships that these organisations are beyond the pale, that one should not be funding them and that their work is integrally tied up with terrorism and with terrorist attacks. The response to both batches of information by virtually every country that has received this, has been that Israel’s evidence is thin, that it is unconvincing, that it is not compelling, that the countries will not change their relationship with these organisations and that they will not stop the funding on the basis of the information that Israel has presented.

Last week, when I was in Geneva, I met with the director of Al-Haq. If Israel had meant to finally impose the designation, he would not be able to travel. If that designation ever did come to fruition, it would mean the instant banning of these organisations, the possible arrest and trial in military courts of the staff and the leadership of these organisations, as well as the probable freezing of all their funds. Because most of the funds have to reach the organisations through some form of operation with the Israeli banking system, no funds could ever be transferred from Europe, from North America or from wherever else they would come to these organisations.

If that happened, it would cripple Palestinian civil society. These organisations primarily focus their work on the occupation and on analysis of what they consider to be the gross violations associated with it. Some of these organisations also do examinations with expected Palestinian leadership. In any society in the world, there cannot be a strong, vibrant, democratic exchange of ideas in the way in Ireland and Canada are used to, if there is not a strong civil society.

For years there have been reports, including one of my early ones, that talk about this shrinking space for Palestinian, but also Israeli, civil society organisations that work on the occupation. This is a matter of defence of their right to be able to do this work. I think there are four Irish citizens who act as special rapporteurs. Many members will know the name Mary Lawlor, who is the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. She has been sterling in her defence of the right of these Palestinian organisations to exist, to thrive and to make their reports as critical as possible. That is one of Ireland’s gifts to the broader world.

The Deputy’s third question had to do with the 169 enclaves of Palestinian land that are separated from each other in the West Bank. If I can extend the Deputy’s question, these Palestinians in the West Bank are separated from each other. They are also separated from the 360,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem by the separation wall. They are separated from the 2.1 million Palestinians living in Gaza. There is no other comparable situation in the modern world that I can think of - if members of the committee can think of one let me know - where a population is so divided and is so strategically fragmented by a ruling power in order to keep them separate from one another.

James Wolfensohn was the president of the World Bank in the late 1990s and in the early 2000s. After he retired from the World Bank, he was appointed by the Quartet to be its special envoy in Jerusalem. He said that there is no such thing as an operating economy where there is no freedom of individual and commercial movement. He said that with specific reference to the Palestinian territory. This strategic fragmentation, aside from the miracles of Zoom or virtual connection, means that Palestinians are increasingly not knowing each other, because they are separated from each other. I have mentioned the separations within the Palestinian territory. It also means that Palestinians are separated from one another with respect to the 1.6 million Palestinians living as Israeli citizens, as well as with respect to the 5 million to 10 million Palestinians who are living abroad, outside of Palestine and outside of the region itself. This is not by accident. This is not an incidental aspect of the occupation. This has to be a grounding strategy to keep the Palestinians apart from one another so that their society will decay and their ability to develop strategic, political direction will also decay.

The fourth thing the Deputy has raised is the issue of illegal occupation. I thank him for that. While all of his questions are very good, I am really glad that he has raised that particular position. I mentioned in my opening remarks that was used by the Irish ambassador in late February in her remarks to the United Nations Security Council. I point the Deputy to page 47 the joint committee’s report from July 2021. One of its recommendations, which I want to speak about for a minute, is that Ireland would support an International Court of Justice opinion on the illegality of the prolonged occupation and de facto annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory. I had not realised that until today. Again, I say an additional, “Thank you” to Ireland with respect to that.

In one of my early reports, I think it was my third or fourth report back in 2017, I laid out the case and the argument that the Israeli occupation has now become illegal. Most of the world thinks of Israeli occupation as lawful, albeit with some illegal aspects to it, via these settlements, to the annexation, to the wall and so on. Since I released this report in the fall of 2017, I have been pushing for the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution to seek a new advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. This is in order to pose the question as to whether Israel's occupation has now become illegal. Additionally, if it has become illegal, what legal consequences flow from that? This will be one of the activities I will continue beyond the end of my mandate, in a private capacity. I will try to see if we can gather bright international law thinkers and a coalition of the willing, who would lobby and push for this resolution to pass the General Assembly and then be put to the International Court of Justice.

If the International Court of Justice were to find that the occupation was illegal, it would substantially raise the stakes for the international community to break out of its political and diplomatic stupor and begin imposing the kinds of accountability measure that are needed and are indispensable to changing the tables on what is happening.

In light of the evidence in last year's report and what the Irish ambassador has said, I hope that Ireland sees itself as one of the leaders in Europe and, indeed, the world in pushing this forward. This would be a tremendous advancement in diplomacy and a great mark that Ireland could leave in its remaining eight months on the Security Council.

The Deputy's fifth point had to do with the Amnesty report, the human rights report and my report. He stated that they were all evidenced based and grounded in law, particularly international law. He asked me whether those who refused to use the word "apartheid" were negligent. I believe there is a compelling case to call this apartheid. These reports have made that case. I have simply piggybacked on them in terms of their analysis and evidence finding. I hope that this accumulation of reports, which were issued within a two-year period, will change minds and that people will find it more difficult to avoid using the term.

I will make a confession that I have made several times this week in Ireland. When I began my job six years ago, I said that I would not use the word "apartheid" because it would put people off and I would not be able to talk to diplomats or political decision makers. For many reasons, and two compelling ones in particular, I was driven to this and I finally decided about a year ago that either my 11th report or my 12th and last report would have to address this question. The first and foremost reason is that this occupation is being built with concrete, not wood. International law demands that it be temporary and built with wood, yet there is nothing to indicate that it is being built with anything but reinforced steel and concrete. It is meant to be permanent. If there is to be a permanent occupation of the land, it means a permanent division of rights between those of your own people and those of the people you have to wind up subjugating. If the committee can find for me a better word in the English language than "apartheid" to describe this, I will use it, but I have thought about this and cannot find one.

The second compelling reason is that, all of a sudden, the avalanche of reports from Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organisations that the Deputy cited as well as people with esteem and respect in the world – the Desmond Tutus and Ban Ki-moons of the world – are now using this term. Who am I to say that it cannot be used? Let us think of the distance and time. I was one year into my mandate – it was the spring or summer of 2017 – when the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, based in Beirut, commissioned and released a report on apartheid written by one of my predecessors, Professor Richard Falk, and an American professor, Professor Virginia Tilley. That report was probably up on the UN website for a total of 48 hours before – I have to say this with regret – the UN Secretary-General ordered that it be taken down. Five years later, my report is up and is staying up. It has been widely read and widely cited in the weeks since its release. This in itself shows that there is a different climate of opinion around this issue. Let us hope that that continues. Regarding those who the Deputy says are not using the word yet, let us hope that this avalanche of evidence and legal reasoning will be an incentive for them to use it.

Regarding the Deputy's sixth and final comment, this is something that has to be at the top of the agenda. I do not know if he used this word, but the word I am using is "accountability". Accountability is missing. We are discussing a 55-year-old occupation imposed by a country with a population of a little more than 9 million people on 5 million other people and where Europe is the leading trading partner, with 40% of Israeli exports going to Europe. Europe has so much power in this respect. If Europe and the wider world can impose upon Russia, which is a country of 140 million people and a major nuclear quasi-superpower, crippling sanctions and accountability measures - beginning in 2014 and with much more ferocity now - over an invasion and violations of international law, why can that not be done in respect of Israel? Israelis of conscience raise this issue constantly. Nothing is going to change and break this "paradise" feeling unless and until the international community steps in with vigour and courage to get Israel to bring this situation into compliance with international law.