Mr. Alan Shatter:

I appreciate the opportunity to briefly address members of this committee of which I was a founding member and past Chairman. I am here today representing the Ireland Israel Alliance together with Ms Natasha Hausdorff, a distinguished English barrister and expert on European and international law who is a member of UK Lawyers for Israel.

In my limited time slot, I will focus on the substantive provisions and politics of the draft prohibition on the importation of goods Bill. A more detailed analysis of the Bill is contained in the alliance's 8 July joint written submission with UK lawyers and my own submission of the same date. The Bill is essentially a sectarian measure based on falsehoods, riddled with obscurity and anomalies, and detached from historical, religious and present-day reality. It abandons all lessons learned in our own peace process. While most of the discussion so far has focused on the relevance of EU and international law to the Bill and its possible extension to services, the actual specifics of it and its enforceability have received little attention. It is that on which I focus, and Ms Hausdorff will address the former matters.

The Bill's central proposition is to prohibit "the importation of goods originating in an Israeli settlement", wrongly depicted by the Bill's preamble as an international law obligation. The goods targeted are deemed by the preamble to be maintaining what it obscurely and wrongly describes as "the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory". Even if the "illegal situation" depiction is accepted as accurate, as it is now known that the total value of commercial goods so imported in the five-year period from 2020 to 2024 came to €685,000, no credibility attaches to the proposition that such imports maintain anything. Rather than having any substantive impact, the Bill is now justified and lauded by some as simply symbolic. Israeli settlements referenced in the Bill from which imported goods are to be prohibited are an intended legal euphemism for locations in which Jews are present, reside or work in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The symbolism is to publicise the Irish Government's disapproval of any Jews doing so, to demonise Israel and to portray Ireland as advocating that locations be judenrein, a policy which reflects that attempted in Europe by Nazi Germany in the last century. It is a denial of 3,000 years of history, Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology, credible attempts to permanently end Israeli-Palestinian conflict and present-day reality on the ground.

In essence, the Bill is the first initiative of any European government to enact legislation to intentionally boycott and discriminate against Jews since the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. This antisemitic symbolism is reinforced by the absence from the Bill of any prohibition on the importation of goods originating from any other occupied territory. The Bill, if enacted, will, however, impact on not only its targeted Jewish-originated goods but also those originated by Israel's Arab citizens, by those of all denominations, by Palestinians and jointly by those of different backgrounds working together. The Bill is intent on maintaining division, not contributing to conflict resolution, peace and reconciliation. Its malign application to industrial zones such as the Barkan Industrial Park clearly illustrates this. It is of no relevance to the tragic ongoing Israel-Gaza war, despite some saying it is.

The Bill is riddled with difficulties and anomalies. Its reference to the Minister for foreign affairs designating by reference to postal codes the areas of its application means no member of this committee truly knows exactly from where originated goods are to be prohibited. The absence of any definition of "originated" creates a myriad of difficulties, as illustrated in my written submission. The enforcement role of our customs service and the Bills connectivity to the Customs Act 2015 raises significant questions I also addressed in my submission.

Apart from the expenditure involved, the potential chaos and bureaucracy that enforcing the Bill could create at airports and ports in its application to tourists, residents returning to Ireland and business visitors need to be explored, as does its violation of agreed Brexit amelioration measures and the maintenance of the free movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic. In this context, the Bill starkly resembles the unenforced "Father Ted"-like provisions applicable to the importation of condoms contained in the Health (Family Planning) Act 1979. It may ultimately prove to be nothing more than fantasy politics and political theatre that does profound damage to the reputation of our State and further undermines the credibility of anything said or proposed by the Government to effect conflict resolution.

The committee should clearly ascertain what, if anything, is intended to be done to enforce the Bill, the cost of mobilising our customs services to do so, the practicalities and the legality. It should totally oppose the Bill's enactment. Hopefully, we can return to these issues.