Mr. Christopher Holt:

We will split up the questions. I will take the question on compensation, the types of demolition and sustainability and Mr. Randles will tackle the questions on international humanitarian law, IHL, and breaches of the Geneva Convention.

I will start with the question on compensation. It is important to clarify that when the donors to the West Bank Protection Consortium seek compensation, they do not do so before a court. It is not a claim before a court. The West Bank Protection Consortium records every single structure that is seized or demolished by the Israeli authorities in a database and has done so since 2015. We also include threats to those structures. We document the details of the incident, the Palestinians affected and the financial injury to our donors. Then our donors collectively seek compensation from Israel through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, COGAT, unit, which is responsible for operations in the West Bank. We have been making such claims for more than three years and to date, we have not received any compensation although, to be honest, it is not something we expected. The reason member states seek compensation is to preserve their legal rights. We do it to put Israel on notice that we are recording these losses and their impact and to preserve the legal rights of member states to pursue further action if their compensation claim is unsuccessful. Israel's response is generally quite clear, namely, that the construction supported by member states is not compliant with Israeli law and is illegal. We have very robust and strong expert analysis that says we are providing humanitarian aid in occupied territory and do not need a construction permit from Israel. What we are doing is very much in accordance with IHL. Compensation is sought from Israel, either by démarcheor letter. It has not been received but because we have recorded and preserved the legal rights, it gives member states the option to pursue lawful countermeasures against Israel for the destruction of humanitarian aid. That could involve things like offsetting Irish aid to Israel or offsetting, collectively, the aid of consortium donors all the way up, at the very top end, to sanctions. That is, ultimately, a decision for member states to consider themselves.

On the types of demolition, we often talk about the demolition of structures, which is quite a vague way of describing what is happening. What is being demolished are the homes of Palestinian families, the schools they attend, the health clinics they use, their water systems and solar panels. This is much of what we support and deliver with our funding as well. Some of these communities are quite remote and vulnerable already so if a health clinic or school is destroyed, it can mean that children then have to walk 10 km or 15 km past a settlement where they are exposed to harassment and violence as a result of that demolition. The impact on vulnerable Palestinian communities is very significant.

On the issue of sustainability, as I mentioned previously, we have delivered some 4,000 schools, homes and community centres since 2015 and fortunately, over 92% are still in place. This is partly because when we deliver infrastructure, it includes the logos and flags of all of our member states. We think that acts as a deterrent, which is borne out by the fact that 92% of the structures are still in place. The demolition rate of consortium structures is far below that of other self-funded homes and of other donor-funded homes. In that sense, we would say that it is still an effective investment but that is not to say that it is not imperative that Israel is held accountable for what is demolished. In terms of the financial figure, the consortium has received some €50 million since its formation and less than 1.3% of that has been lost as a result of demolition. In that context, we would still say that it is an effective investment.More importantly, we are providing critical humanitarian aid that really does ensure the viability of the two-state solution and without the aid that we provide, the risk of forcible transfers of Palestinians would be greatly increased.

Committee members touched on the current situation and statements that have been made. We welcome the statements made by the US State Department on behalf of the Biden Administration in relation to Sheikh Jarrah and the Al-Aqsa Mosque although it has been noticeably quieter on Gaza. It is a good first step but as we have seen in the past and as we showed with our graphs, statements on their own without meaningful consequences will not be enough to deter demolition, evictions and violations. We definitely welcome the statement by the US Administration on Sheikh Jarrah and the Al-Aqsa Mosque but it is imperative that such statements go beyond mere condemnation to meaningful consequences, including offsetting aid, withdrawing from voluntary agreements and at the upper end, sanctions.

Finally, on the question of how the situation has affected us, the majority of our operations in the West Bank Protection Consortium are in the West Bank but all of our partners are operating in Gaza. It is having an incredibly significant impact on staff and their families, especially those families with children. A number of our staff have had their homes damaged or destroyed and the impact on their mental health is severe. We have seen an MSF clinic damaged, which is affecting the capacity to provide aid. In the West Bank, we are seeing a dramatic increase in violence perpetrated by the military, settlers and Palestinians as well. This means that for us, it has been more difficult to access the communities we serve. It has had an impact although in the West Bank we are still able to access communities and provide aid. I will hand over to Mr. Randles now.