Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 22 February 2022

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence

Israel's Apartheid against Palestinians: Amnesty International

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not received any apologies but I understand that Senator Craughwell will not be able to be with us for the entire meeting. I can call him early if it helps.

Joining us today from Amnesty International Ireland are Mr. Colm O'Gorman, executive director and a former Member of these Houses; and Mr. Tim Hanley, campaigns officer. Joining us remotely from South Africa is Mr. Saleh Higazi, deputy director, Middle East and north Africa region of Amnesty International. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome them all.

I remind our witnesses that we have not yet left the Covid restrictions entirely behind. In view of that they will see some members of the committee here wearing masks. Some members of the committee are joining us remotely from their offices, including Deputy Stanton and Senator Wilson.

Mr. O'Gorman is no stranger to the committee and I welcome him back. The format of the committee is that we will hear the opening statements of the witnesses and we will then proceed to a discussion, involving questions and answers with members of the committee. I ask members to be concise in their questions to allow all members an opportunity to participate.

We may have a second round, should members so desire.

I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that we should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make that person or entity identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, the witness will be directed to discontinue his or her remarks and it is imperative than any such direction be complied with.

For witnesses attending remotely outside the Leinster House complex, there are some limitations to parliamentary privilege. As such, they might not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as does a witness physically present in the room.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in a way that makes that person identifiable. I remind members that they may only participate in the meeting if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. That is either in this room or from offices within the Leinster House complex.

I am very pleased to call on Mr. O'Gorman to introduce his colleagues and make his opening statement. I thank him and his delegation for meeting the committee this afternoon.

Photo of Gerard CraughwellGerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Berry is tied up in the Dáil this afternoon and asked me to convey his apologies.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator and note the apology.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak about Amnesty International's recently launched research report entitled, Israel's Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity.

As the Chairman mentioned, I am joined by two of my colleagues. Mr. Saleh Higazi is attending online. He is deputy director of our regional office for the Middle East and north Africa region, and head of our office in east Jerusalem. Seated on my left is Mr. Tim Hanley who is the campaigns officer at Amnesty International. We very much look forward to discussing our research in-depth with the committee following my opening statement.

Our report details how Israeli authorities are enforcing a system of apartheid against all Palestinians living under their effective control. This includes Palestinians living in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as well as Palestinian refugees in other countries. The report documents how Israel treats Palestinians as an inferior racial group, segregating and oppressing them wherever it has control over their rights. It provides new evidence of the institutionalised nature of Israel's oppression of Palestinians, and of how Israeli laws and policies are designed specifically to deprive Palestinians of their rights.

Amnesty International adopted a global policy on the human rights violations and crime of apartheid in 2017. This has enabled us to examine the potential situations of apartheid globally on a consistent basis. For example, in 2017, we released a report which found that the Myanmar Government subjects the Rohingya people to a system of apartheid.

For too long the international community has sidelined human rights when dealing with the question of Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians experiencing the brutality of Israel's repression have called for an understanding of Israel's rule as apartheid for more than two decades. Over time, a broader international recognition of Israel's treatment of Palestinians as apartheid has begun to take shape.

Amnesty International's findings build on a growing body of work on the question of apartheid by Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organisations, as well as lawyers, writers and academics. Palestinians have called for an understanding of Israel's rule as apartheid for more than two decades, and have been at the forefront of advocacy in that regard at the UN. More recently, research by the Israeli human rights organisations Yesh Din and B'Tselem, as well as Human Rights Watch, has contributed to a spectrum of analysis within the legal framework of apartheid.

The scale and seriousness of the violations documented in our report make it clear that the international community must drastically change its approach. It must recognise the full extent of the crimes that Israel perpetrates against the Palestinian people for what they are, which is apartheid. Through its failure to take any meaningful action to hold Israel to account for its systematic and widespread violations, and crimes under international law, against the Palestinian population, the international community has contributed to undermining the international legal order, and has emboldened Israel to continue perpetrating these crimes with impunity. Apartheid is a crime against humanity and the international community has an obligation to hold the perpetrators to account.

The report analysed Israel's intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and examined its key components, that is, territorial fragmentation; segregation and control; dispossession of land and property; and the denial of economic and social rights.

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued a policy of establishing and then maintaining a Jewish demographic majority, and maximising control over land and resources to benefit Jewish Israelis. Today, all territories controlled by Israel continue to be administered with the purpose of benefiting Jewish Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians, while Palestinian refugees continue to be excluded. Our research has also documented unlawful as well as inhumane or inhuman acts committed by Israel against Palestinians with the intent to maintain this system, including forcible transfers, administrative detention and torture, unlawful killings, the denial of basic rights and freedoms and persecution. It has concluded that such acts form part of a systematic as well as widespread attack directed against the Palestinian population, and amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid as defined in the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. We found that these constitute the crime against humanity of apartheid because they are committed in a context of systematic oppression and domination, and with the intent to maintain that system.

Amnesty acknowledges that inhuman or inhumane acts inside Israel occur to a lesser degree, and in a far less violent manner, than in the occupied Palestinian territories. However, our report documents violations inside Israel that amount to inhumane acts and, in the context of the wider system of domination and oppression of Palestinians, the crime against humanity of apartheid.

Palestinian citizens in Israel enjoy greater rights and freedoms than their counterparts in the occupied Palestinian territories, while the experience of Palestinians in Gaza is very different from those who live in the West Bank. Nonetheless, Amnesty International's research shows that all Palestinians are subject to the same overarching system. Israel's treatment of Palestinians across all areas is pursuant to the same objective, to privilege Jewish Israelis in the distribution of land and resources, and to minimise the Palestinian presence and access to land.

We make a number of very specific calls at the end of this lengthy research report. With regard to the Israeli authorities, our primary call is for Israel to end the international wrong and crime of apartheid by dismantling measures of fragmentation, segregation, discrimination and deprivation that are currently in place against the Palestinian population. In our report, Amnesty provides numerous specific recommendations for how the Israeli authorities can do this.

We call for an end to the brutal practice of home demolitions and forced evictions as a first step. Israel must grant equal rights to all Palestinians in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories in line with the principles of international human rights and humanitarian law. Israel must recognise the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to homes where they or their families once lived. Israel must also provide victims of human rights violations and crimes against humanity with full reparations.

The scale and seriousness of the violations documented in our report calls for a drastic change in the international community's approach to the human rights crisis in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. We call on the international community, including Ireland, to put pressure on Israel to end this system of oppression and domination. We call for the Israeli authorities to be held accountable for

committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, and for all those with jurisdiction over the crimes under international law committed to maintain the system of apartheid, to investigate them.

Our recommendations to other states, including Ireland, are: to publically recognise that international crimes, including the crime of apartheid, are being committed in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories; to not support the system of apartheid or render aid or assistance to maintaining such a regime; and to co-operate to bring an end to this unlawful situation.

We call on governments to immediately suspend the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer, including transit and transshipment, to Israel of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment, including the provision of training and other military and security assistance. We call on them to institute and enforce a ban on products from Israeli settlements in their markets and to regulate companies domiciled in their jurisdiction in a manner to prohibit companies' operation in settlements or trade in settlement goods.

We call on governments to use all political and diplomatic tools at their disposal to ensure Israeli authorities implement the recommendations outlined in this report and ensure that human rights are central to all bilateral and multilateral agreements with the Israeli authorities, including by exercising due diligence to ensure these do not contribute to maintaining the system of apartheid.

We call on governments to exercise universal jurisdiction in investigating any person under their jurisdiction who may reasonably be suspected of committing crimes against humanity or other crimes under international law. We call on them to ensure all proceedings meet international standards of fairness and do not involve seeking or imposing the death penalty. There should be no time limit for prosecuting crimes against humanity, nor should immunity from prosecution or amnesties be granted for such crimes. We call on governments to ensure their legal and institutional frameworks enable the effective investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of the crime against humanity of apartheid.

We have recommendations for Ireland as a member of the UN Security Council. We call on Ireland to support action to impose targeted sanctions such as asset freezes against Israeli officials most implicated in the crime of apartheid. We call on it to support action to impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel. As I have said, the embargo should cover the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer, including transit and transshipment of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment, including the provision of training and other military and security assistance.

We call on Ireland to support action to explore avenues to bring perpetrators of crimes under international law to account, in particular if Israel itself fails to investigate and prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity and other human rights violations perpetrated against the Palestinian population in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. This could include referring the entire situation to the International Criminal Court or establishing an international tribunal to try alleged perpetrators of international crimes.

Apartheid is both an international wrong and a crime against humanity. When a crime against humanity is committed the international community has an obligation to hold the perpetrators to account. We hope that by shedding more light on Israel's discriminatory system of domination over the Palestinian people, we will intensify efforts to dismantle the harmful policies and practices that prevent Palestinians from living with equal rights and dignity. This can only be achieved when the international community holds the Israeli Government and other complicit parties accountable. Apartheid has no place in our world and states which choose to make allowances for Israel will find themselves on the wrong side of history. Ultimately, Israel must dismantle the apartheid system and start treating Palestinians as human beings with equal rights and dignity. Until it does, peace and security will remain a distant prospect for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. O'Gorman.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. O'Gorman, Mr. Hanley and our guest in South Africa. They are very welcome to the committee to discuss what is a very important publication. It follows previous publications from B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and most recently from the former Israeli attorney general, Michael Benyair. They have all come to the conclusion that Israel is operating a system of apartheid. This is something people have been saying for a long time. There is overwhelming and convincing evidence now to show what is being operated on the Palestinians is apartheid.

The committee has done extensive work on this issue and Israel's brutal policies against the Palestinians. A witness who previously came before the committee, Professor Noura Erakat, told the committee what Israel's goal is and it summed it up for me:

Israel's goal is to take as much Palestinian land, with as few Palestinians on the land as possible, and to concentrate the greatest number of Palestinians onto the least amount of land possible. This is evidenced in, and explains, the 29 contiguous bantustans in the West Bank, the concentration of Palestinians in an open air prison in the Gaza Strip.

That is what this is all about. Of course, we know exactly where bantustans originated. It was in the apartheid system that was in operation in South Africa. Unfortunately it took far too long to dismantle it and that only happened when the eyes of the world were opened up to the brutal actions of the apartheid system in South Africa. Unfortunately, the world continues to look away when fantastic and hard-hitting reports such as this are published. They show clearly what is happening on the ground.

I have several questions and perhaps the witnesses can answer them at the conclusion. Mr. O'Gorman said work on the report was done between July 2017 until 2021. We know Israel has dismissed every report that has criticised it. It has said it is refusing to embark or engage with the investigation by the International Criminal Court, ICC. Was research and analysis carried out on the ground? Was there any support from the Israeli occupation authorities? How was the research and work carried out?

I have listened to the international reaction to the report and the attempts to dismiss it. I saw the response from our Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was asked for our response. He said he has highlighted Ireland's clear position expressing concern regarding the unequal treatment of Palestinians and the application of different standards in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. He stated Ireland will continue to raise our concerns regarding discriminatory practices towards the Palestinian people. This response is exactly why we have the report we have. Ministers such as Deputy Coveney and the international community throughout the world continue to bury their heads in the sand and allow this system of apartheid to carry on.

The report contains some very good recommendations. I want to hone in on some of them. Along with others I have highlighted how Ireland is complicit in the apartheid system in operation in the occupied territories and throughout Palestinian lands. We have seen the continued opposition to allowing the occupied territories Bill coming forward. It would be a definitive measure and a stand against the brutal occupation and apartheid system. We see the refusal to bring it forward.

Last year, after considerable debate, Ireland was the first EU country to declare that Israel has breached international law in annexing Palestinian lands. Since then the silence has been absolutely deafening. We find that Israel has breached international law but we are not prepared to do anything to hold it to account. This is a major failure.

What is the view of our guests on that issue? It stands in stark contrast to what is happening in other parts of the world at the moment in the context of the territorial integrity of Ukraine being at serious risk and the brutal actions of Russia. Swift action was taken in respect of that brutal occupation - measures and sanctions were imposed straight away - but we see the inconsistency of the international community in the failure to impose similar measures, or any measures whatsoever, in respect of the brutal actions of Israel.

There are several recommendations relating to military co-operation between states and Israel. From 2011 to 2014 there was €3 million in trade between the Irish Defence Forces and the Israeli defence forces. That involved the buying of weapons that have been tested on Palestinian citizens. The response of the Minister is that there is a proper procurement process in place. It is absolutely crazy that the State is carrying on any trade, but particularly military trade, with Israel. I note that is one of the recommendations in the report. All of the recommendations need to be adopted straight away but I refer in particular to the recommendation relating to the UN General Assembly and calling for the re-establishment of the special committee on apartheid. That is something that can be done and must be done straight away.

I do not disagree with anything in the report. It is about how we make the international community and the Irish Government take action when they continue to stick their heads in the sand. They are seriously in breach of so many international laws. These are crimes against humanity but those in the international community, including Ireland, continue to stick their heads in the sand. How will we force the Government to take action? It seems to be hiding behind the EU but the EU is not interested and does not want to take action for whatever reason. Fundamentally, ordinary citizens need to take a stand in the first instance and force the Government of the day to take action, as the Dunnes Stores workers did back in the 1980s when they took a stand against the apartheid system in South Africa. I commend the report but it is critical that political pressure is exerted on those who have the influence and power to actually bring an end to the crimes against humanity and the flagrant breaches of humanitarian law that are being carried out. There are so many recommendations in the report that relate to the UN. UN expert Michael Lynk has stated the Israeli settlement expansion tramples on human rights laws. That is a UN special rapporteur himself stating clearly that what Israel is doing is trampling on human rights laws. There are voices pointing out the flagrant breaches of international law and criticising that but how can we force those in power to take action and stand up against the brutal actions of Israel?

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Brady. For the benefit of Mr. O'Gorman and our other guests, I propose to take contributions from a number of members and then go back to our panellists for further observations and replies to specific questions.

Photo of Gary GannonGary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our contributors from Amnesty International. Although the Government has yet to officially respond to the full findings of the Amnesty International report, both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, have answered questions on the floor of the Dáil regarding its conclusion that Israel is enforcing a system of apartheid against Palestinians. The Taoiseach and the Minister have indicated the Government does not use the term "apartheid" in describing Israel's policies against Palestinians, with the Taoiseach stating he is not sure using the term "will add anything right now" and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, saying the Government is conscious of how the language one uses can be interpreted and that he does not think the term "apartheid" is helpful. What is the response of our guests to those perspectives?

Chairman, may I ask a question, get an answer and then ask another question?

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Deputy to group his questions because I am anxious to bring in colleagues who have joined us especially for this debate.

Photo of Gary GannonGary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to make sure I get full answers to my questions.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should ask a number of questions and then I will come to Senator Joe O'Reilly. I ask Mr. O'Gorman to ensure the issues raised by the Deputy are responded to by him or his fellow panellists.

Photo of Gary GannonGary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. Yoseph Haddad, an Israeli Arab activist, is due to speak here in the Oireachtas later this week. He is reported as saying he is coming here so that people can listen to the voices of his community rather than others who speak over them. In undertaking this research, did Amnesty International speak to Israeli Arabs to get their perspectives? How does the research accurately reflect their lived experiences as Arab citizens in Israel?

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. Right across the committee there is an acceptance of the fundamental findings of the report that there is systematic oppression of the Palestinian people, that there are illegal settlements - in fact, they have been increasing - and that there is an entire system of control and oppression right through the occupied territories. I do not think there is any question about that. It is accepted. The report is very thorough and detailed in that regard and Mr. O'Gorman got that point across succinctly in his presentation.

Party politics is not an issue within this committee or others like it. Rather, it is about the matter confronting the committee. However, I feel it is incumbent on me to state that one of the points made by my very good friend, Deputy Brady, is not objectively the case. I invite him to comment further if he so wishes. In fact, another friend of mine who is in the Gallery and has listened to many debates in the Seanad has accepted the bona fides of the Minister. I think the current Minister for Foreign Affairs is very concerned with this issue. He has visited Palestine on several occasions and is occupied by and sincerely engaged with the issue. He recognises the wrongs in this situation and has put that on record repeatedly, including in debates in the Seanad initiated by my friend in the Gallery. That is objectively the case. If I understand his contributions to date correctly, there is not one finding he would challenge in terms of the detail of the report but his contention is that he has to maintain the moral authority and capacity to advance the two-state solution and the peace process which, tragically, is not very live at the moment. I would be interested in the views of our guests on this. That potential must be there. He must have the moral authority and be able to speak to both sides while being unequivocal on this issue. He has repeatedly been unequivocal on it. I am not aware of any Member of these Houses who for one moment would suggest there is not systematic oppression here.

I am aware of Council of Europe reports on minors being victims of police harassment or being jailed and raids taking place at night. The litany goes on. I sat through a plenary session of the Council of Europe at which we dealt with a report specifically about the oppression and criminalisation of minors. They are being taken from their homes and, in some instances, tortured. They and their families are being terrorised. That is all on record and nobody is suggesting the contrary. I would like our guests to respond on the basic contention that the moral authority of a neutral country such as Ireland might be challenged or compromised if we do not maintain the capacity to speak to both sides, particularly in the context of the UN.

Amnesty's response to that will be interesting. That is the fundamental question I would ask. I am not here to challenge any of Amnesty's findings. Indeed, I am not aware of any person who would wish to do so and nor could he or she factually do so. What we do with the findings? How do we progress them and get the correct outcome?

For the sake of balance and objectivity, which I am sure Deputy Brady would welcome, we must explore both sides of this argument. How do we proceed here? Do we go for the nuclear option? In that case, the Minister's capacity to progress things would be damaged. That is the fundamental question and I am interested to hear the answer from the witnesses. Sadly, the facts are the facts and, tragically, it is all true. It is only a question of how we deal with it, how we approach it and where we go from here.

Things look very bleak at the moment but does Amnesty see any prospect of a fledgling peace process or any initiatives in that regard?

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having regard to the fact we have heard from three members of the committee who have asked a considerable number of questions and forwarded a diversity of observations, I propose to go back to Mr. O'Gorman, Mr. Hanley and Mr. Higazi for their responses. Then I will resume with Deputy Clarke.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

I thank the committee members for their questions. In a moment I will defer to our colleague, Mr. Higazi, who is on the line from South Africa, to speak specifically to questions around how the research was carried out and where but also to add his perspective to some of the nuance of the other questions that have been asked. I will answer some of the finance and other questions in some detail and then hand over to Mr. Higazi.

I will begin with Senator O'Reilly's comments because they allow me to deal with some of the questions from Deputy Brady as well. Then I will move on to Deputy Gannon's questions. It is heartening to hear Senator O'Reilly's view that there is nothing in this report with which members of this committee, or indeed the Irish Government, might take exception. That is incredibly important because the first thing, and this goes to one of Deputy Brady's questions, that all states should do, including Ireland, is acknowledge the simple, established fact that Israel is perpetrating the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians and against the Palestinian populations wherever it exerts control over those populations. That is critically important. We must be able to name honestly what is happening and then work to hold to account those who are responsible for such crimes.

The committee heard what we said earlier about applying all possible influence and pressure on Israel to ensure it dismantles this system. The simple reality, which we must begin to acknowledge, is that under the cover of political process and the pursuit of a peace process that seems to deliver for everybody but the Palestinians, Israel continues to build and develop further this system of apartheid, oppression and control of the Palestinian population. The approach the international community is adopting at the moment is not in any way addressing the grave crimes that continue to be perpetrated by Israel. Indeed, it is allowing Israel to advance and even increase the egregious nature of those crimes. There must be a fundamental rethink and shift in approach on the part of the international community. Any state that wants to maintain moral authority and to advance the cause of peace, security and human rights must stand for the rule of law and must be prepared-----

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I just make one observation, please? It is the case that all of the Minister's speeches since he became Minister for Foreign Affairs are consistently condemnatory of oppression. I just want to put that on the record. Perhaps Mr. O'Gorman will acknowledge that and then we can progress.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

The Senator will appreciate that the one thing I will not do as an independent observer and witness before this committee is-----

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but as an independent observer, he must-----

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

I can actually-----

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members this is not about the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said and what he does on this issue is on the record. It is a matter of fact. I would not like this meeting to be turned into an attack on the Minister for Foreign Affairs in any way. We expect him to be here at this committee within a few weeks and, as is always the case, I will be inviting Deputy Brady and others to make commentary in his presence. As he is not here today, he is not in a position to reply but I would not like to leave allegations of a political nature hanging. The Minister will be in a position to reply in two week's time. I am sorry to cut across Mr. O'Gorman. I do not wish to hinder him in his endeavours to reply to questions.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

I hope Senator O'Reilly will appreciate that the one thing I do not want to do, as it would not be appropriate, is to engage on questions that are essentially political in nature about the positions different Members of the Oireachtas from different parties might take.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. O'Gorman for that.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

It is fair to say, and this is absolutely not a political point, that Ireland has, through many Governments and Ministers, played an important role internationally in advancing the debate and discussion on Israel and Palestinian rights. We want to see that continue. If it is the case that Senator O'Reilly, all members of this committee and the current Irish Government, including the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, agree with everything that is revealed in this extensive, detailed research report, then there is only one possible outcome. Ireland must immediately recognise that Israel is perpetrating the crime against humanity of apartheid and should use all mechanisms available to ensure the system is dismantled and those responsible for those crimes are held accountable. I do not believe it is possible to hold any kind of moral authority to advance the cause of human rights, peace and security if one is not prepared to stand up for and defend the rule of international law. I very much hope that is what we will see from the Irish Government. We have seen it repeatedly from the Irish political system and from successive Irish governments in the context of this particular question, and I hope we can do so again. We are engaging directly with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister and that will continue. I understand there will be statements in the Seanad on this matter in the coming weeks and that the Minister will participate in that, so I am sure we will hear more then.

On the question of maintaining the capacity to speak to both sides, I do not believe it is possible to engage in meaningful efforts to move this matter forward if we do not name simple facts. We must start from a position of establishing truth and then require all parties to any discussion to respect their obligations under international law. On the question of Ireland recognising the facts set out in this report and responding appropriately, Ireland along with all other states has an obligation under international law to name this wrong. It has an obligation simply to name and challenge this wrong and to stand up for and defend the rule of international law. That means, particularly in the case of a very grave international crime against humanity like apartheid, naming that, seeking an end to the perpetration of that crime, and ensuring those responsible are held to account.

In some ways that starts to respond to Deputy Gannon's questions about the comments made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I understand that, in political terms, it might be felt that language can be unhelpful at times. The Taoiseach is on the record as saying the Government would not use the term "apartheid" in describing Israel's policies against the Palestinians. We are not using terms. We are providing evidence that makes it very clear that, as a matter of law, the crime of apartheid is being perpetrated. It is not a term, a turn of phrase or a glib, throwaway statement. We are applying international law to the specific context and making findings grounded in law. It is not about phraseology or terms. It is about law, respect for the rule of law, human rights and the dignity of the millions of Palestinians the international community has failed to protect for many decades.

On the question of the speaker who, I understand, is due to speak in the Oireachtas in a couple of days' time, all perspectives to this discussion are important and are welcome. Mr. Yoseph Haddad is somebody who has spoken very often about his particular perspective as a former member of the Israel Defense Forces and as an Arab citizen of Israel. Our research involved speaking to and engaging with Israeli Arabs to get their perspectives. However, on that specific question and other questions to do with the research, I will defer to my colleague, Mr. Higazi, who, as it happens, is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and can deal with that more substantively.

Mr. Saleh Higazi:

I thank the committee for having me here today. I will start with the last point. I am a Palestinian citizen of Israel. To address Deputy Gannon’s point about speaking to Palestinian citizens of Israel, and it touches a bit on the research methodology of this report, the 280-page report consists of more than 20 years of systematic documentation of human rights violations, which we revisited, carried about Amnesty International, both in Israel and occupied Palestinian territories. We have more than 30 case studies in the report. The majority of these are case studies we have reported and campaigned on for more than 20 years, including case studies inside of Israel, particularly in the Naqab-Negev Desert, where there is a situation whereby Palestinian citizens of Israel live in what are called “unrecognised villages”. They are denied basic services, including electricity, water and education. Although they are citizens of Israel, their right to political participation, including in municipal and parliamentary elections, is impeded by the lack of the infrastructure that Israel does not provide them with.

A system of oppression and domination will indeed create a hierarchy among those who are oppressed and dominated. Therefore, the experience of oppression may be different from one place to another. This is not limited to geography. Some of the Palestinians living in Ramallah may be living a less oppressive reality than those living in Al-Naqab in unrecognised villages. Mr. Haddad may be living a less oppressive reality or experience than me, for example. We, as Palestinian citizens of Israel, are prevented from access to 80% of the land. I am, for example, prevented from passing my status as a citizen to my wife. My children are not registered to her and therefore cannot travel with her outside of the country, only with me. Therefore we have to go separate ways – me through the airport and her through Jordan. I am prevented from taking my wife, for example, to visit family in Jerusalem without a permit. As members may know, the process of applying for permits can be and is, most often, a degrading, humiliating and often dangerous process. It may include interrogation by Israeli security forces.

On top of that, in 2018, to crown a body of laws, policies and practices that are discriminatory against Palestinians, Israel passed the nation state law, stating very clearly in a claw of constitutional value, that this state, Israel, is only for Jewish people and only Jewish people have the right to self-determination in this state. This also angered many Arab Jews in the state who serve in the army and have protested and continue to protest this law. Indeed, the experiences of oppression are different. They are not all equal, but we are all equal under a system of apartheid.

If I may just return a little bit to the issue of methodology, the report consists of in-depth legal analysis of a body of laws, policies, and practices that Israel has put in place with regard to Palestinians, from the time of establishment until today. We look at laws that relate to nationality and status, land and property, and social and economic rights. As I mentioned, we revisited our documentation over the past couple of decades. We carried out new documentation on the ground. I am speaking to the committee from South Africa, but now we are based in East Jerusalem in Ramallah and I have a team there. Along with other colleagues who usually also carry out field research, including by visiting the communities and victims and getting testimonies and collecting evidence, including court documents, video and photographic evidence, medical reports and whatever corroborative evidence related to the specific case we are documenting, our team carried out, also in the context of writing this report, research on the ground specific to this report.

There was a question from Deputy Brady about the co-operation by the Israeli authorities. Unfortunately, despite us requesting information and meetings on a number of occasions, including sending a letter last July to request a meeting between our secretary general, Agnés Callamard, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yair Lapid, which has gone, as usual, unanswered, the Israeli authorities do not respond to our requests for meetings or letters to request information.

Also, it is very important to highlight that Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, has been denied access to Gaza since 2012. I was on the last delegation that visited Gaza in 2012 and that was to document violations by the Hamas authorities there as well as the effects of Israel’s illegal blockade amounting to collective punishment.

I want also to comment on Deputy Brady’s point on impunity and world inaction. Indeed, Israel has been held to a lower standard than other countries when it comes to international law and the violation of human rights. This is what we certainly hope to change with this report. By issuing this report, Amnesty has now completed a circle of consensus among human rights organisations. Deputies have mentioned other reports, including by B’Tselem and Yesh Din. It is important to note that Palestinian human rights organisations, academics and intellectuals have been using this legal framework of analysis for more than 20 years now. They have paved the way. Israeli organisations followed, and now international human rights organisations like ourselves have joined to complete this consensus. We hope this will create a turning point towards dismantling this system of oppression and domination amounting to apartheid, stopping the crime against humanity from being perpetrated, and towards those perpetrating it being held accountable.

On the last point, if I may just comment also on the issue of the peace process and the two-state solution, this has, unfortunately, sidelined human rights and international law for too long, allowing for a situation like this one of apartheid and a crime against humanity to be perpetrated and to continue to be perpetrated. I just want to note that, since the beginning of the year, we heard on at least two occasions from Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yair Lapid, that Israel will not continue with negotiations, it will not return to the two-state paradigm and there will not be a Palestinian state. We also heard, over the past couple of the days, I believe at the Munich Security Conference, the Israeli Minister of Defense also saying there will not be a Palestinian state. There are these statements from Israelis that are saying the peace process is not here, it will not be here, and that Israel, and this is a position that did not change from previous governments, will not recognise a Palestinian state. We as a human rights organisation are calling for international law and human rights to be centred in any engagement with both Israeli and Palestinian authorities and in their relationship with each other.

Without doing that, the current crisis will continue. I hope I have addressed some of the points. I am happy to come back to them.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Higazi. Would Mr. O'Gorman like to comment further on some of the issues raised by Deputy Brady?

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

Deputy Brady mentioned the Control of Economic Activities (Occupied Territories) Bill, and I recognise that Senator Black has joined the committee. That recommendation is in the overall report. It is a recommendation to all states. Ireland now has an opportunity to show exceptional leadership. It is a big and brave step, but it is really important. We would encourage the Oireachtas and Government to get behind the Bill and allow it to pass through the Oireachtas as the clear will of the Parliament. Enacting that legislation would be a significant step forward, and we hope that others will follow.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Mr. Higazi like to come in at this stage?

Mr. Saleh Higazi:

No, not at this point.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Mr. O'Gorman that last year this committee, following extensive engagement and hearings over a number of weeks, produced a detailed report wherein we fully accepted that there were very serious breaches of international law. We called for an end to the unacceptable practices of forced and continuing demolitions and evictions. In terms of the next steps in the report published by Amnesty International, many recommendations mirror what we have already said and done. I say that to Mr. O'Gorman merely to set the context for today's meeting. This is an area on which our members have engaged with some specialty over a period of time. The latest report will assist us further in our engagement in the Houses of the Oireachtas, as public representatives and in the international field. Senator Joe O'Reilly is a member of the Council of Europe.

Photo of Sorca ClarkeSorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I thank our guests. As Mr. Higazi said, the circle put in place by the report captures where we are today very well. Amnesty International is not the only group to come forward with a report like this. Other reports have come from very different perspectives and from people with very different backgrounds. In terms of this report's place in that group, it is important, as it is as a stand-alone piece of work, and Amnesty International needs to be commended on the time, effort and work it has put into that.

I welcome the replies to the methodologies behind the report. As we have this discussion, there can no longer be a defence of ignorance, lack of understanding or knowledge of the reality of a system of segregation through laws, policies and practices that put so much horror into people's lives on a daily basis. I listened with some interest as Mr. Higazi spoke of oppressive areas. Less oppression is still oppression. It may look like something different in different areas, but it does not dilute the impact that oppression has.

If we are committed to recognising international law, the very basis of that is the recognition of basic human rights that goes along with it. I take what Senator O'Reilly said regarding the amount of talk and detail that has gone into the Council of Europe. While that has a place, there is now a diminished defence of a failure to act and failure of movement that cannot be allowed to continue. We can only speak about issues for a certain length of time. We can only debate issues for a certain length of time before that needs to result in the next step, whatever that may lead to. While we can express and raise concern, that does not improve the lives of the people most impacted by the actions of the neighbouring state.

The witnesses touched briefly on the Control of Economic Activities (Occupied Territories) Bill. I am curious as to the witnesses' feedback on the report that the committee produced last year. I would also like to hear their opinion on the potential UN treaty on business and human rights that is to be published quite soon and the impact it could have and role it could play here. When something is named and called out for what it is, I agree with the witnesses that it brings an additional focus to an issue, regardless of what it may be.

This committee has, as part of its remit, spent a considerable amount of time considering Israel and Palestine, and the various different wrongs that are happening. I cannot say that we have had a report quite like this to date. I again congratulate the witnesses on the work they have done. It is an important piece of work. I ask for their feedback on our committee report and the potential role for the business and human rights treaty.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett is not a member of the committee, but he is very welcome. I also welcome Senator Black.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and committee. Most of all, I thank Amnesty International for what is an excellent report and one that has the most profound implications for anybody who accepts, which I believe they should, its findings and conclusions. It is an amazing thing to have, in such a forensic way, detailed the instances of oppression, discrimination and injustice that have been visited on Palestinians, which many might acknowledge. However, it goes further and explains that the policies of apartheid, oppression and persecution are not the incidental result of this or that government, rather are the outworkings of a system and state that is an apartheid state. It has been an apartheid state from its very foundation.

I would like Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Higazi to comment on that point. I would say it is impossible to deny the systematic nature of the oppression, persecution and discrimination that Palestinians suffer. However, we are breaking new, and absolutely correct, ground in saying that those are the outworkings of an apartheid system and are written into the DNA of the Israeli state. That has very profound implications.

In my case, without any political tutoring I came to those conclusions in 1987 after a few weeks of working in an Israeli moshav in the Negev and then walking a few weeks later into Al Fawar refugee camp in Hebron. It was apparent to me in the first few weeks of the first Palestinian intifada that I could not describe what I saw as anything other than apartheid. It screamed at me that this was apartheid. It was systematic and institutionalised, and in the very nature of the state.

I would like Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Higazi to elaborate a little on what that means. For example, much of the political debate, even though it has been critical of the Israeli state in the treatment of Palestinians, would say that if we change one bit of policy, behaved slightly differently elsewhere and worked genuinely towards a two-state solution maybe we could address the problem.

It seems to me, however, that that cannot resolve the problem. This is my view and I want to know if it is the view of Amnesty International resulting from its findings. The inevitable conclusion of this report and of the facts on the ground is that the apartheid system and the state that operates and is based on that apartheid system have to be dismantled. That has questions for the two-state solution. In fact, the two-state solution institutionalises apartheid, even by definition. Will either of the speakers comment on this? There is a certain analogy here to the extent that very few of us would accept a two-state solution to the conflict in Ireland. We would reject it. There is no two-state solution as that is a recipe for sectarian division and conflict in perpetuity. Yet much of the international narrative is that somehow a two-state apartheid segregation and separation of Jewish and Palestinian people is somehow a viable solution. Is it the conclusion based on this report that this is not only a fantasy but actually perpetuates the apartheid system because it is based on the separation of Jews and Arabs based on racial differences and that has very profound implications for how we understand the need to address this problem?

Amnesty International has argued for comprehensive sanctions. If we accept that Israel is an apartheid state, as evidenced by the Israeli law of return which gives Jewish people the right to return to the state of Israel even if they have never set foot in it but denies that right to millions of Palestinians, as set out in the basic law of the state, and extends to such things as the Jewish National Fund and its policies in regard to land and the nation-state law, do we have to say that it is not only about particular sets of sanctions to address this, but that we are duty-bound to have the same approach to the apartheid state of Israel as we had to the apartheid state of South Africa? Is that not inevitable? I ask Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Higazi whether the inevitable conclusion one has to draw is that we simply cannot allow an apartheid state to persist and that we cannot give it any kind of legitimacy or credibility at any level if this is a system as bad, or arguably worse in its institutionalisation of apartheid structures, as the apartheid system of South Africa. Those are my questions. I commend the Amnesty International team again on putting together a fantastic report.

To give some breaking news, as well as the Seanad, the Dáil will also be discussing this report today. I asked for that today and the Chief Whip has indicated that the Dáil will also discuss the report next week. We have to make our decisions on this report and we have to act.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett and call Senator Frances Black who is not a member of this committee but is very welcome for this discussion.

Photo of Frances BlackFrances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not going to come in today but I was inspired to do so after I heard the witnesses speak. I welcome this report. It was joyful to read it and look at the recommendations. This report lays bear in brilliant detail what Palestinians have said for decades, namely, that they are living under a system of apartheid. There is no doubt about that. We know that B'Tselem and others have said the same thing. B'Tselem is Israel's biggest human rights organisation. We in Ireland have stood for human rights and played an important role in opposing apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s. Ireland has an obligation to act on this now.

In 2018, I was in the West Bank and Gaza. I do not know how I got in but I did. I cannot explain the big impact that had on me. It left a mark on me that I will never forget. I saw the blatant apartheid with my own eyes. I went to Hebron where I saw how Palestinian people were moved out of their homes and businesses, up into the mountains. They were not allowed to walk down their own streets. Imagine if, on Dublin's Grafton Street, people were moved out of where they lived, apartments or businesses, taken out somewhere and then not allowed to walk up even to look at where they used to live. This is in the West Bank under the so-called two-state solution. I drove through the settlements. People have this image of the settlements being little huts, but it was like driving through Florida. There were palm trees, shopping centres, big fountains, swimming pools and when you drive around the corner people have no water and their electricity has been cut off. They are living in deprivation and poverty. People cannot drive down their own roads. If they have a certain licence plate, they are not allowed to drive on the main roads but must drive another route. Kids in Hebron, instead of going 200 m to their school from where they live, have to walk two miles because soldiers were there. We were allowed to go down those streets because we were with an Israeli citizen, an ex-Israeli soldier from Breaking the Silence. He told us, on that trip, that when he and other soldiers were going on duty from midnight until 8 a.m., they were told to make their presence felt. He said they had to go into homes in the middle of the night and terrorise those people so that all their neighbours would hear them. That was making their presence felt. Sometimes they would insult the women to get the men going. They would do that from midnight until 8 a.m. The chances are that will happen tonight while we are asleep in our beds. That is the reality. That is what I saw.

I cannot tell our guests what this means to me. The International Court of Justice, ICJ, states that these settlements are illegal and break international law. We are trying to do something that is not major by any means. All we are trying to do to make a point is not receive goods from settlements. By receiving these goods, we in Ireland are breaking international law. When I started to campaign for the occupied territories Bill, I held public meetings around the country. People were hanging from the rafters at those meetings. They were crowded. People were turned away from them. In this country we know what it must be like for the Palestinian people.

This report means so much to me and the Irish people. I cannot thank Amnesty International enough for it. At last, we have an organisation like Amnesty International saying that this is apartheid. It was the same in the 1980s. The Irish Government in the 1980s would not support legislation at that time, and it was the people in Ireland who changed the course of what happened in South Africa in the 1980s. I believe the people might do the same again. I intend to hold meetings again in this country, with this report, to say "This is apartheid". That is what I would like to see happen in this country. It is not just about the Government and what it is saying. This is about what the people are saying.

I have two questions for Mr. Higazi. One is about the occupied territories Bill. What would it mean to the Palestinian people to have the occupied territories Bill passed in this country? I have been invited to many countries in Europe, as well as Chile and other countries to talk about the occupied territories Bill because people in those countries want to introduce similar legislation.

I have not got around to visiting them all. What would it mean to the Palestinian people? I remember when we could not get the occupied territories Bill in the programme for Government. When we brought it in during the last term, all Opposition parties, including Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, supported us. When it was discussed as part of the programme for Government, it was taken off the programme, which was devastating. What was that like for the Palestinian people? Is Mr. Higazi aware of what that was like for them, because I know I got hundreds of emails from them asking what was going on. They thought Ireland was going to help them. They thought Ireland was going to stand up for what was right, and for them. The Palestinian people are looking to Ireland to help them. That is why this report is so important, and I cannot thank Amnesty enough.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Higazi, in particular, to whom the question was addressed, about the piece of legislation referred to. I do not believe it is as simplistic as suggested by Senator Black. It is a light piece of legislation. The House will have an opportunity to discuss it. It is not just an issue of political will. There are some legal issues attached. However, I do not wish to pre-empt what Mr. Higazi might say by way of a response.

I will come back to Mr. O'Gorman and his team in response to the very strong contributions of Deputy Clarke and our visiting representatives from both Houses, Deputy Boyd Barrett and Senator Black. Deputy Boyd Barrett has asked for an elaboration of the terminology of "apartheid". As a reminder to members and, indeed, Mr. O'Gorman, last year we produced what we described, and was independently described as, a pretty comprehensive report calling for an end to practices we described as unacceptable. We forwarded copies to the Government and to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I put it to Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Higazi that, while we all acknowledge the importance of the report, we should go further in terms of next steps to look at the recommendations. For example, the report calls for an end to home demolitions. We already accepted that. The report calls for an end to forced evictions. We accept that. It states that Israel must grant equal rights to Palestinians in Israel and in the OPT, in line with principles of international human rights law. We have accepted that as a committee. It further calls on Israel to recognise the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return home, to where they or their families lived in the past. We, again, called for that. The report calls for the international community to step up its engagement to end the cycle of conflict. Nobody would disagree with that, least of all members of our all-party committee. However, I note that Amnesty's Israel chief criticised the group's report, which accused Israel of apartheid. One might expect a refusal by Israel to accept the report would not be in any way surprising. It is what one would expect from the usual suspects. However, it seems to me that there are suspects who may not be "usual". I refer to Molly Malekar when she said that Amnesty International's report is too sweeping an indictment, ignores human rights work and wrongly depicts Arab-Israelis as helpless victims. It was very strong criticism.

In addition to Senator Black's question, would Mr. Higazi like to comment on the head of the Ra'am party in Israel, Mansour Abbas, who said he would not use the word apartheid to describe relations between Jews and Arabs within the country? Mr. Abbas noted that he is in a position to join the cabinet, which he may well do. He felt that it was a little unhelpful to use the very strong terminology in the report. He is looking for solutions and to bring people together.

In terms of next steps for the report, I acknowledge that members of this committee and the Houses of the Oireachtas will have a role in what Deputy Boyd Barrett said about debates next week perhaps in the form of a motion from the Parliament. I have not seen the detail, but Deputy Boyd Barrett might help me in that regard. I thank Mr. O'Gorman for dealing with the queries and questions of the members so far.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

The Chairman might assist me. I have tried to make a note of the significant number of questions that have been asked and I want to try to deal with them all. If there is any we do not get to, perhaps the Chairman will remind us, particularly the questions he raised.

A general point I wish to make is that we of course recognise the extraordinary work many people have been doing for a very long time on this issue. One of the things we think is significant about the publication of this report is that it now establishes a consensus across the international human rights movement that the crime of apartheid is being committed by Israel. That is an important moment. There is now a clear consensus on that fact and we are calling on others to step up, to name that wrong, to acknowledge that crime, and to take the steps that flow from that. We recognise the work of B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and other organisations in that regard. We were very conscious of that fact when coming before this committee. This is an issue on which this committee has been very engaged. We welcome, appreciate and value the calls made in the committee's recent report that reflect many of the steps we are taking which are critical to dismantling the system of apartheid this report reveals.

However, we urge the committee to go one step forward and recognise that all the violations that members have identified and called for an end to, constitute a system of domination and control over Palestinians, who fall under the control of Israel, and that that amounts to the crime of apartheid. We ask the committee to look at the evidence collected in its own work and the sum of all the recommendations the committee made. It made those recommendations on the basis that there are breaches of international law being committed by Israel. Members must realise that there is a system at play here. Please look at the very solid and extensive evidence that has been presented by us and so many others for so long. We are talking about a system of oppression and control. Even if the members are not inclined to listen to that evidence, I ask that they listen to what Israel says. Israel talks about maintaining a system of control in order to achieve very particular outcomes on its own part. Israel is very clear about this.

That leads to me addressing some of the questions from Deputy Boyd Barrett. He might not find these answers particularly useful, but I will explain why they might not be particularly useful. We are a human rights organisation. We operate within the context of the framework of international human rights law, and our analysis is within that framework. I say that to explain an answer to some of the Deputy's specific points. He was talking about Israel as an apartheid state. That is one of the questions we have been asked since we issued this report. Are we saying that Israel is an apartheid state? We are not, and there is a reason for that. Apartheid is a grave violation of international law, as everybody knows, where one racial group exercises oppression and domination over another racial group. It is a crime against humanity committed by individuals who perpetrate serious violations in order to maintain such oppression and domination. Thus, under international law, there is no such thing as an "apartheid state" and that is why we have not used that phrase or made that particular finding in that regard.

The Deputy asked questions about political solutions to this conflict and whether two-state solutions and other solutions might deliver. We are asking the international community to step up and go beyond the question of political frameworks that provide solutions and instead start to respond to the very grave crimes and grave human rights violations that are being perpetrated in the midst of this conflict.

As a human rights organisation, we do not comment on political questions such as the legitimacy of any particular state or ideology. We do not take a position on Israel as a Jewish state or on the rights of Palestinians to an independent state, since we do not take a position on the measures taken by people to exercise their right to self-determination. We simply cannot do that as an international human rights organisation. We recognise that both the Jewish and the Palestinian people claim the right to self-determination, but in the context of any process that seeks to arrive at a political solution to this conflict, there needs to be recognition that the promise of a political solution or the dancing with a notion of it, as undertaken by Israel, has been used as cover to build and maintain a system of oppression and control. We support all efforts to bring an end to that conflict.

Of course we, as individual human beings and as an organisation, support every possible effort that might be brought to bear to provide a solution to this conflict. It is now many decades since the foundation of the state of Israel and the beginning of the development of this system of oppression and control. The international community has to recognise that the role it has played so far has granted Israel absolute impunity to continue to commit these grave crimes under international law. We are now at a point where Israel will suggest that stating that fact is anti-Israeli, as if there is something inherent to Israel as a state that demands or requires that it be permitted to perpetrate these violations. I cannot imagine anything being more anti-Israeli or against the integrity of any state than the political leaders of that state asserting that it is central to its character that it be allowed to breach international law and violate the human rights and dignity of millions of people, including citizens of the state, to whom it denies equal rights and nationality.

I will move on to some of the other questions. I am sure Mr. Higazi will want to speak too. The Deputy asked about comments from one member of Amnesty International in Israel. The report was produced by Amnesty International's international secretariat. Our secretary general flew from London to launch the report in east Jerusalem. Amnesty Israel was not involved in producing any research for the report because that role is reserved for the international secretariat. Of course individual people, including, perhaps, one individual in Amnesty Israel, might have a different analysis based on elements of the report, from its first reading. The report is the outcome of four years of exhaustive research and legal analysis that have been carried out by Amnesty International's international secretariat. It chimes with and accords fully with findings made by other leading international rights organisations. It accords with a view, as articulated by Deputy Brady earlier, of a former attorney general of Israel. Is he anti-Israeli? It chimes with comments and statements made over many years by senior political leaders from Israel. For over a decade, former Jewish political leaders of Israel have talked about how Israel has been building a system of apartheid.

Before I hand over to Mr. Higazi to see if he would like to add anything and before I am reminded if there are questions that we have not answered, I return again to one of the key requests we have for this committee. That request is for the committee to build upon the important work it has done so far and to apply the lens that we have applied. When one looks at a range of human rights violations, one is looking at a system designed to produce a particular outcome. It is a system of domination and control that is intended to favour one racial group over another and to discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians wherever Israel controls their lives. In doing so, it perpetrates grave human rights violations. By any standard, including a simple reading of the apartheid convention, that is apartheid. Stating that and calling for an end to that system of apartheid is a critical next step.

Mr. Saleh Higazi:

I will start with the Chairman's question about Amnesty Israel's position and the head of the Ra'am party. Our report details how the state of Israel has established a system of institutionalised discrimination, oppression and demolition against the Palestinian people. This is a clear breach of its obligations under the customary international law. As the world's largest human rights organisation, Amnesty will not shy away from these findings. All research and analysis that was carried out was done according to strict research methodology and legal standards, as I explained in my previous interventions. Recognising the complexity and sensitivity of the issue, Amnesty International engaged with colleagues in Israel as well of members of the Knesset, including reaching out to the Ra'am party, for example. There were some positive engagements with the Joint List, which is a group of Palestinian parties in the Knesset. They were involved in the planning and drafting of the report. Different stages were discussed with them.

The report makes for difficult reading. Our conclusion may be shocking but it cannot be ignored or altered because it is disturbing, because of criticism or opposition, or because it may be inconvenient for some people. It should prompt intense debate at various levels, including individually, institutionally, in civic society in Israel and everywhere else, and hopefully in the political establishment in Israel and elsewhere. This is one objective of the report. Amnesty International's future campaigning, including our colleagues in Amnesty Israel, will seek to dismantle the system of apartheid and institutionalised discrimination against Palestinians, and to uphold human rights for everybody in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as for Palestinian refugees who are continuously denied the right to return.

In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett's point, we need to deal with a system and not the symptoms of a system. There is a story that I tell about this report. In 2014, I was a researcher with Amnesty International and I wrote a report on the pattern of unlawful killings of Palestinians, including children, by Israeli forces, in the occupied West Bank. A case study for that report was Nabi Saleh, where there were two unlawful killings in the context of protests against illegal settlements and occupation. When I went to present the report, I was happy about it because it was a well-researched, detailed investigation, with what I thought were strong recommendations. One of the leading activists there, Bassem Tamimi, was also a prisoner of conscience in recent years. He took the report and thanked us for it. He said that they appreciate Amnesty's work and think it is important. He opened the report to the recommendations page and said that he sees that we are asking Israel to oppress better and perhaps to kill better, but that we are not dealing with the root causes or dealing with the systematic violations. That was a wake-up call for me and other colleagues at Amnesty. To stop the perpetration of the human rights crisis, we need to deal with its root causes.

Last year, Palestinians protested in solidarity with families in Sheikh Jarrah and there was a general strike unseen perhaps since the 1930s. It involved Palestinians from across historic Palestine in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, from Haifa in the south of Israel all the way through Ramallah, Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank all the way down to Naqab. All these people protested and one day all held an act of civil disobedience whereby they did not go to school or work. They did not open shops. There was a general strike held by Palestinians across the green line.

In a way, this report is a response to that. Palestinians, through this protest and strike, were saying they were one in defying fragmentation. Most important, they were saying it was one system of oppression and domination that they were standing against. The executive summary at the beginning of the report is basically giving that context of the support as a response to Palestinian movement and Palestinians acting under agency, both inside Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories.

I have a point about the system, apartheid and when it started. The report finds the system of oppression and domination leads to the crime against humanity of apartheid that exists today. This system consists of four main pillars. These are the fragmentation of Palestinians into different geographic areas, segregation and control of them within these areas, the dispossession of land and property and the deprivation of basic rights. That is what exists today.

In the report, we needed to trace the roots of the system to be able to understand the system fully, which is a necessity to be able to tackle the issue more effectively. Going back to the year of the establishment of the state, there was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which the Palestinians call Nakba. There were massacres and forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. That was, basically, the initial act of fragmentation. We can then look at how Palestinians who became citizens of Israel were put under military rule while Jewish Israelis were not. They were segregated into the towns and villages and they were controlled violently, including the right to freedom of movement. In the early 1950s, there was the establishment of what is now called Israel's land regime, with a body of law and policies that were put in place to take away land and property in a discriminatory and racist manner from Palestinians and not allow them access to it.

In the report we have a case study of Iqrit, a village in the Galilee in the north of Israel, where Palestinians were forcibly displaced from the village, promised a return but the promise was never fulfilled. The houses were blown up by the Israeli army after the displacement and the lands were taken away and given to Jewish Israeli settlements that were established around the village of Iqrit. Even up to now, Palestinians of Iqrit are not allowed to return to their homes, although they try. Again, we have been speaking about agency. Palestinians from Iqrit have their weddings in the church that remains standing; all the houses were blown up, leaving only the church and cemetery, which remains. They use these two places and the church in particular whenever they have ceremonies of death or marriage, basically celebrating life and death. They are continuously trying to return and Israeli authorities are continuously denying them the right of return. They are internally displaced Palestinians within Israel.

The roots of the system are there but apartheid was not codified under international law as a crime until 1973 and then again when the Rome Statute came in 2002. The system of oppression and domination started being established around the time of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and then with a body of laws, policies and practices put in place against Palestinians afterwards.

It is very important to stress that what is happening today is Israel is perpetrating crimes, including forcible transfer, arbitrary detention and torture, unlawful killings and the deprivation of rights to maintain this system of oppression and domination. These crimes form part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian population and, therefore, there is a crime against humanity of apartheid being perpetrated in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories against Palestinians. The roots of this are very important to highlight and this is what we tried to do in this report through documentation of the laws, policies and practices.

With regard to Senator Black's point, I cannot stress how important it is to have a measure of accountability. This breaks the impunity that Israel enjoys, particularly with regard to Israeli settlements that continuously expand, including with housing units and infrastructure, leading to the continuous dispossession of Palestinians and the continuous violation of their human rights in a systematic manner on a daily basis. The settlements are the heart of this myriad of violations that millions of Palestinians suffer on a daily basis. There has never been accountability. Palestinians were celebrating when they heard about the occupied territories Bill and they are still very hopeful about it. Ireland inspires much hope and this is expressed in talking to human rights organisations or people on the ground. The people of Ireland are seen as people who stand in solidarity with Palestinians in defending their rights. That will continue. There is hope and there continues to be hope.

If that Bill is passed, it will be part of the chipping away of one of the pillars of the apartheid system. We would be chipping away at Israel's impunity when it comes to violating international law. I cannot stress how important that would be and I hope we can see the Bill passed soon.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I am conscious of the time but Deputy Clarke is looking to ask a question. We have other business.

Photo of Sorca ClarkeSorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a follow-up question taking in the human rights aspect. The report indicates the geographic scope is essentially Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories but another piece of work was done by Amnesty International on Palestinian refugees in host countries. I believe it was in 2007. What reports have since been received on the position of refugees abroad, their perception of what is going on in their homeland and a desire to go back?

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a brief supplementary question.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked one question that was not answered, although I very much appreciate all the answers that were given. I asked whether the apartheid system that has been identified by Amnesty International as being operated by Israel will lead us to the same conclusions as we eventually took in dealing with apartheid in South Africa? The sanctions being called for should be of the same sort as those that eventually brought about the dismantlement of the apartheid regime in South Africa. As the witnesses know, there is a difference in emphasis. Some people would say we should put in place sanctions for one particular aspect, such as illegal settlements, or a particular form of behaviour. The witnesses are saying this is a system and I agree, with the system going right across the state of Israel, not just Gaza and the West Bank. That system has been operating for a very long time and is institutionalised.

It seems that this means the international community is duty-bound to take the same attitude to the Israeli apartheid system as it took to the apartheid system in South Africa? Do the witnesses agree? It is the inevitable conclusion but is it the conclusion being drawn by Amnesty International. It is certainly the conclusion I have.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

If it is okay I will revert to Deputy Clarke's specific point because it is difficult to give her a brief reply. I would rather come back to colleagues directly if that is okay. Mr. Higazi will reply to her second question and I will also ask him to speak to Deputy Boyd Barrett's points.

I might frame that by saying, in the first instance that it is, of course, understandable that when people think of apartheid, they think of South Africa. When we have examined what is happening in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and indeed, the impact that Israel has on Palestinian refugees in other countries, we are looking at it purely in that context and applying the framework of international law to that context. We are not comparing it with South Africa. I am not saying the Deputy is doing that either. I certainly remember that period in Irish life. The world was very slow to get to grips with it and to acknowledge what was happening in South Africa. I hope we will see a better response to what is now being revealed in respect of Israel. Equally, many of the mechanisms that are currently available were not available then. The ICC was not available as a mechanism, for instance, to refer the situation in South Africa to. That is why we are making that specific call. The situation in Israel should be referred to the ICC and this specific issue should be investigated by the ICC. There are new mechanisms that are available to us.

To make a general point, I suspect that unless the international community gets serious about taking meaningful action to ensure that Israel is held to account and to challenge the impunity granted to Israel to continue with these egregious, flagrant breaches of international law and the commission of crimes against humanity, it is not going to end. We agree that until the international community starts to respond in a very different way, it is not going to end. That is why many of the findings that we made in this report have been made. It is why we call on this committee, at least as a first step, to accept the findings of this report; to state clearly as a committee that it agrees with the analysis in the report that Israel is perpetrating the crime against humanity of apartheid; to accept and support the recommendations set out in this report, including the recommendations to other states, including Ireland; and to communicate that directly to the Irish Government. That is something we would very much welcome.

I might refer to Mr. Higazi on the Deputy's specific question about the 2007 study on the situation of Palestinian refugees in other countries, if he is aware of it. If Mr. Higazi is not aware of it, I am sure he will be able to talk about it in the context of the work we have done over the past four years.

Mr. Saleh Higazi:

To mark the 73rd anniversary of Nakba, we did a project that is available online. Perhaps our colleagues in Ireland can share the link to the project with members. We worked with Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank. It was called Seventy+ Years of Suffocation. We worked with an award-winning photographer who, along with our researchers, went to speak to Palestinian refugees in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and the occupied West Bank about the 73 years and what it means to them, and about their return, their situation right now and the suffocation they feel. Suffocation is mentioned in the title of the project. It is about the sense of suffocation of being there and stuck in time and a place for 73 years. That was our last attempt to do such work since the previous reports that we have done. We also continuously work on the situation of Palestinian refugees in terms of their rights and the respect or violation of their rights in the host countries around Israel and Palestine and also elsewhere. We can share that project with the committee. I highly recommend it. It is hard to describe, but it is a very powerful project.

I wish to make a minor point on the comparison with South Africa. I agree that a system of apartheid cannot be reformed or amended. It needs to be completely dismantled. I agree with Mr. O'Gorman that in a way, we are working with the same formula that was applied to apartheid in South Africa, namely, international pressure and sanctions from outside, coupled with support for peaceful resistance from inside. It is a very crucial formula. It still holds. The only addition here, as Mr. O'Gorman has said, is that we have this mechanism of international justice, through the ICC, available to us. There is a open investigation. We want the office of the prosecutor to include an investigation into the crime against humanity of apartheid. We also have universal jurisdiction. We think it is a very important tool that needs to be mobilised. We did not see apartheid litigated in South Africa. We want to see it litigated here. International justice mechanisms are key when it comes to dismantling Israel's system of apartheid against Palestinians.

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that rather concludes matters for the moment. As we have been informed, a Dáil debate will take place next week. There will be a Seanad debate which will take place at the earliest opportunity, I am sure. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is coming in on 9 March. I am sure there are issues that have been raised in respect of this report that will be raised with him on that occasion. He will also be in a position to inform us of what he has done, which is a matter of fact on record, and more importantly, what he intends to do. We know, in this committee, that he has vociferously made his criticism known on aspects of Israeli Government policy. Indeed, he has done so in the context of deliberations with this committee. I am sure he will do so again. Let us await his attendance at our committee meeting on 9 March.

On behalf of the joint committee, I wish to thank Mr. O'Gorman, Mr. Hanley and Mr. Higazi for meeting with us. I thank them not only for the overview they have given us of this very comprehensive and detailed piece of work, but also for dealing with the questions of members in such a comprehensive manner. I propose that we go into private session for the benefit of members who are with us.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.08 p.m. and adjourned at 5.33 p.m. until 3.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 March 2022.