Mr. Gerry Liston:

That is understood.

Moving on to the Long Title of the Bill, it describes its purpose as being “to provide for compliance by the State with its international legal obligation, as identified by the [ICJ] ... advisory opinion of ... July 2024, to take steps to prevent trade relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory”. This is taken word from word from paragraph 278 of the advisory opinion, except, as was mentioned yesterday, there is a crucial difference. Two words have been deleted. The Long Title refers to preventing trade relations but the ICJ referred to preventing trade or investment relations.

The UN independent international commission of inquiry on the OPT and Israel gave its interpretation of this obligation late last year, stating that it means that “States must cease all financial, trade, investment and economic relations” with the Israeli settlements. This goes far beyond even a ban on trade in both goods and services. In other words, if the debate remains confined to whether the Bill should ban goods alone or both goods and services, the Bill still will fall short of the ICJ obligation regardless of the outcome of that discussion.

This context makes it all the more clear why, if the Oireachtas were to exclude settlement-linked services from this Bill in full knowledge that such services are being provided from within Ireland, not only would this be contrary to the stated purpose of the Bill, it would be a knowing and clear-cut violation of the very international legal obligation which the Bill claims to give effect to.

On behalf of GLAN and Sadaka, I urge the committee to do its part in ensuring the State fully complies with its international law obligation to ban all Irish trade and investment links with the illegal settlements.