Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I will just come in there although I know there may be a third round. One thing I am a bit concerned about is that I have been hearing statements from Mr. Cross to the effect that we cannot just do something we would like to do. We cannot just do it because we want to unless there are sanctions. I feel this is muddying the waters because what we are discussing is law. We are discussing law.

We are not discussing sanctions or the imposition of sanctions. That is a separate discussion. We are discussing questions of law and compliance with law. I will come back to it because there are some fundamental pieces here. I just do not see how Mr. Makhlouf can have come to the conclusion that there was, as he said, no legal basis to refuse.

The Genocide Convention has been mentioned but I want to speak on the advisory opinion from July 2024. As Mr. Makhlouf will be aware, the committee made very specific recommendations. Recommendation 10, for example, and a number of other recommendations specifically and explicitly mentioned the July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. That advisory opinion is not law but it is from the highest level in the world. It is the highest authority’s interpretation of what the existing, already applicable law is. It is a definitive interpretation of what law applies in relation to a specific situation. Paragraph 278 of that advisory opinion speaks about the obligations on states and other actors, which we will come back to in a moment, to “prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. That is an obligation not simply to consider or think about trade or investment relations but to prevent them.

We know how these bonds have been used. We know they have been used in relation to military actions, in relation to the actions that have been taking place in Gaza and in relation to the Israeli exchequer, which has expended money on supporting the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and so forth. If there are investment relations that will directly contribute to the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, how is that consistent and how is it possible for the Central Bank to say it is being consistent with international law and the EU legal principle of consistent interpretation, which says legal provisions should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law? The EU collectively is also bound by the ICJ. How does that add up? I am not clear what the basis is for saying that the part of international law that basically states that self-determination should not be trampled on – the direct language is that trade and investor relations should be prevented - is reflected. I just do not see how that is reflected with the facilitation of investment relations.