Ms Natasha Hausdorff:

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it on the many misconceptions that have pervaded discussion of this Bill. In my opening statement, I will stress that nothing of substance has changed since the previous Bill was frozen after the previous Attorney General correctly advised that it contravened EU law. Last year's International Court of Justice, ICJ, advisory opinion, which, despite the language used in this committee, is not a ruling, decision or judgment, is a non-binding opinion that did not create obligations or comprise Israel's legal position in any way, as Judge Nolte observed. The advice from the court is only as good as the information upon which it is based, and in this case, the court relied on false and partial information and misapplied international law, as Vice-President Sebutinde powerfully identified. Three other judges also dissented on the legality of Israel's presence in East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Second, under EU law, the position remains unaltered. The EU maintains exclusive competence over the common commercial policy, including trade with third countries under Article 3.1(e) and Article 27 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU. National measures in this field are prohibited unless specifically authorised by the Union. Restrictions on trade between EU states and between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are also prohibited. The arguments for the public policy derogation made before this committee distort the extremely strict interpretation of the provisions in the case law. The derogation is not available here. The distortions also apply to the central purpose of the Bill, which others have argued draws upon the ICJ's opinion. The opinion referenced dealings by states with Israel - the state - and Israel's presence in East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Its content bears no relation to a ban on the importation of goods produced by private businesses, which is advocated for by proponents of this Bill.

Third, the words of the US foreign relations committee chairman, Senator Jim Risch, that this Bill is blatantly antisemitic have understandably been a cause of concern. The position echoes the fact that this version of the Bill now abandons all pretence of going after so-called occupied territories and targets Israel explicitly. The long-standing US anti-boycott legislation necessarily means this Bill would create grave risks for US businesses in Ireland, with civil penalties of up to $200,000 per occurrence and possible criminal penalties of up to 20 years in jail and multimillion dollar fines. It is to be expected that US companies will leave, a further gravely damaging effect on Ireland and her economy, as well as her international reputation. I rely on the detailed written submissions to this committee by the Ireland Israel Alliance, IIA, and UK Lawyers for Israel, UKLFI, of 24 May 2019 and 8 July 2025, in which we have addressed the legal position. I will be happy to take the committee's questions.