Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 18 June 2025
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach
Israeli Bond Programme: Discussion (Resumed)
2:00 am
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Níl aon leithscéal faighte againn. No apologies have been received.
Is mian liom na riachtanais bhunreachtúla seo a leanas a mheabhrú do chomhaltaí. Nuair atá páirt á glacadh acu i gcruinnithe poiblí, caithfidh comhaltaí a bheith i láthair go fisiciúil laistigh de theorannacha suímh Theach Laighean. Ní cheadófaí do chomhaltaí páirt a ghlacadh i gcruinnithe poiblí nuair nach bhfuil siad ag cloí leis an riachtanas bunreachtúil seo. Mar sin, má dhéanann aon chomhalta páirt iarracht páirt a ghlacadh ó lasmuigh den suíomh, iarrfaidh mé orthu an cruinniú a fhágáil. Maidir leis seo, iarraim ar chomhaltaí a dheimhniú go bhfuil siad i láthair laistigh de phurláin Theach Laighean sula ndéanann siad aon ionchur sa chruinniú ar Microsoft Teams.
Fiafraítear de chomhaltaí cleachtadh parlaiminte a urramú, nár chóir, más féidir, daoine nó eintiteas a cháineadh ná líomhaintí a dhéanamh ina n-aghaidh ná tuairimí a thabhairt maidir leo ina ainm, ina hainm nó ina n-ainmneacha ar shlí a bhféadfaí iad a aithint. Chomh maith leis sin, fiafraítear díobh gan aon rud a rá a d’fhéadfaí breathnú air mar ábhar díobhálach do dhea-chlú aon duine nó eintiteas. Mar sin, dá bhféadfadh a ráitis a bheith clúmhillteach do dhuine nó d'eintiteas aitheanta, ordófar dóibh éirí as an ráiteas láithreach. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go ngéillfidís don ordú sin láithreach.
I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, members who attempt to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via MS Teams that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.
Today, the committee is considering the Israeli bond programme under the Central Bank of Ireland. Given the widespread opposition in Ireland to the policies and actions of the Israeli Government and its military in Gaza, there is concern in the Oireachtas and among the Irish public about any role the Central Bank has in facilitating the sale of Israeli bonds and how this complies with Ireland's obligations under the United Nations Genocide Convention.
Under the EU prospectus regulation, a prospectus must be drawn up, approved and published when securities are to be offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market in the EU. Third country issuers must choose one of the EU competent authorities as their home member state, subject to certain criteria set out in the EU prospectus regulation. Prior to 2021, the UK was the EU home member state under the regulation for the State of Israel. Ireland was chosen as its new home member state following the UK's departure from the EU. In line with previous engagements with this committee during the previous Dáil term, the committee understands that the Central Bank can only refuse to approve a prospectus where it has a legal basis to do so. Other than insufficient prospectus disclosure, examples of a legal basis for refusal would be the existence of EU financial sanctions prohibiting the provision of services or assistance in connection with the issuance of securities by the Israeli Government or national restrictive measures to the same effect.
In this context, I welcome our guests today. I welcome na haíonna atá againn inniu. Is iad sin an dochtúir Munir Nuseibah of Al Quds university - this witness is leaving at 5 p.m. so members should get in their questions for him first - and, from the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, IPSC, Ms Helen Mahony and Mr. Sean Marmion.
I invite Dr. Nuseibah to make his opening statement.
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
Good afternoon. I thank the distinguished ladies and gentlemen for their kind invitation to speak before them while they discuss a topic that is important for Ireland, the EU and humanity. I am a professor of international law and the founder and head of the human rights clinic at Al-Quds University in Palestine.
In my oral statement, I will provide my legal opinion and advice on the matter under examination by this distinguished committee by taking into consideration the most recent developments and discussions. In a recent questioning before TDs, Mr. Gabriel Makhlouf, the Governor of the Central Bank, stated:
...the Central Bank has to operate within the rules set down for us. In this particular case the rules make no reference to the Genocide Convention so we cannot take it into account.
This statement demonstrates a gap between actions and international obligations. It also highlights a legal issue that has been resolved in international law, namely, the hierarchy of international legal obligations. Furthermore, it raises the question of the status of Ireland’s obligations as an independent and sovereign state while being a member of the European Union and other international organisations. My statement will focus on these points.
First, if and when international legal obligations conflict, what do we do? International law stems from customs, treaties and other sources. Of course, each agreement a state authors or joins is designed to serve its interests and reflect its principles. However, in some situations, like the one potentially highlighted by Mr. Makhlouf, legal obligations conflict. International law obligations are not all equal and there are cases where the choice is clear. At the top of the pyramid of principles in international law are jus cogens norms, also known as pre-emptory norms of international law.
Such norms are the ones that the international community understands and recognises as binding on all states, without any derogations. They stem from customary international law and treaty law. Examples of this type of norm include the prevention of genocide, torture, forcible displacement and other international crimes. They also include the right to self-determination.
The actions and words of the Governor of the Central Bank demonstrate that he prioritises what he sees as Ireland's obligations according to EU law, and argues that the EU and UN should look into measures against Israel. Authorising the sale of bonds contributes to Israel's genocide operations, colonisation of the occupied Palestinian territory and its long-standing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination. Even if EU agreements allow or, as argued, oblige Ireland to authorise the sale, the higher obligation of the Irish State is to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In its advisory opinion in July 2024, the International Court of Justice stated:
... all states [every state around the world] are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
This is an order for all states.
My second point is that Ireland is an independent state, with full responsibility for the actions of its organs. It has been argued in the same context that it is the responsibility of the EU or the UN to address questions of genocide and other crimes, not the Central Bank or Ireland on its own. Some also argued that Ireland's contribution to ending genocide must be exclusive to diplomatic means. This argument has no foundation in international law. Ireland is an independent sovereign country with full personality in international law. It is not a region within a federation. The EU does not erase the independence, hence the responsibility, of each state within the Union. Also, a state may not act in a way that contradicts its obligations, even if it struggles against violations in diplomatic circles. As a sovereign independent state, the Republic of Ireland bears the responsibility of all of its organs. If an illegal action stems from its Government, Judiciary, legislators or other organs such as the Central Bank, in that case, Ireland is held liable.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty ...". Similarly, Article 3 of the codified international legal reference on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts stipulates:
The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.
Article 4 of the same law reads:
1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.
2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.
Hence, it is the responsibility of Ireland to reform its due diligence procedures and legal system in a way that prevents the violation of its international legal obligations. In international law, any violation by Ireland of pre-emptory norms of international law can bring about state liability, as well as individual criminal responsibility for individuals who contribute personally to the criminal act, including by facilitating the funding of an apartheid regime, that is using its budget for genocide, ethnic cleansing, continued colonisation, torture and degrading treatment, and many other atrocities.
I recommend that the Republic of Ireland immediately act to stop its role in the authorisation of Israel bonds. Furthermore, it should reform the system that allows for the continued Irish role. This is based on the fact that: first, Israel is committing international crimes, including but not limited to genocide. The International Court of Justice declared the Israeli occupation as illegal and as a regime of apartheid and-or racial segregation in its advisory opinion in 2024. The bonds are financing these crimes.
Second, even if Ireland has legal obligations stemming from its membership in the European Union, these must not contradict pre-emptory norms of international law, which include genocide, apartheid, forcible displacement, and many other crimes.
Third, Ireland is an independent state, and must not assume that its membership of the EU, or the independence of the Central Bank, will prevent its own liability for aiding genocide and other crimes.
Finally, aiding international crimes also invokes individual criminal responsibility, in addition to state responsibility. Ireland has incorporated the provisions of the Rome statute into its domestic criminal code. Hence, aiding international crimes also has risks for officials of the Central Bank.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Dr. Nuseibah. I invite Ms Mahony to make her opening statement.
Ms Helen Mahony:
I thank the committee for the invitation to be here. For 20 months we have witnessed live-streamed genocide being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Despite UN reports affirming that Israel is committing genocidal acts, the issuance of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice, a separate ruling by the court that Israel's occupation of Palestine is entirely illegal, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, and the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Gaza, the Central Bank continues to act as the gateway into Europe for Israel Bonds. This is simply unconscionable.
The Central Bank directly facilitates the sale of Israel bonds in the European Union. Since 2021, in the context of Ireland being the home member state for Israel, the Central Bank has approved the State of Israel bond issuance programme on an annual basis. Last September, 11 months into the genocide in Gaza, the Central Bank approved a prospectus with no upper limit on the amount of money that could be raised through the bonds. The Israel bonds fund genocide. The prospectus refers to the decision "to undertake military action, which resulted in drafting more than 300,000 reservists launching the war in Gaza".
The Central Bank has said the advertising slogan "ISRAEL IS AT WAR - STAND WITH ISRAEL" is "not inconsistent with the disclosures in the Israeli prospectus". We know what Israel calls the war in Gaza is a genocide.
Significant funds are raised by the sale of Israel bonds globally and in Europe. Recent research conducted by the financial research group Profundo, found that sovereign bonds with a total value of more than $19 billion were issued by Israel between October 2023 and January 2025. Deutsche Bank in Germany accounted for $2.49 billion in sales of Israel bonds and BNP Paribas in France accounted for $2 billion worth of sales.
The Central Bank, by approving the prospectus for Israel Bonds, contributed to the raising by Israel of $4.5 billion in the 16-month period. Under the Genocide Convention, Ireland has an obligation to prevent genocide, which starts at the instance that the State learns of the existence of a serious threat that genocide will be committed. That started with the ICJ ruling in January 2024.
The Central Bank, as an organ of the State, has obligations to act to prevent genocide and not to be complicit in genocide. The Government has the obligation to ensure that no organ of the State, including the Central Bank, is complicit in genocide and that the State, and all organs of the State, take all steps possible to prevent genocide. Ireland has the capacity to significantly diminish Israel’s ability to fundraise for genocide – to cut off approximately 23% of funds generated globally by Israel Bonds – by ending authorisation by the Central Bank of the sale of these bonds. Under international law, all states have an obligation not to assist in any illegal situation.
The ICJ ruling of July 2024 declared that Israel was committing the crime of apartheid and that the entire regime of military occupation of Palestinian territories was illegal and must end immediately. Providing access to EU markets to Israel to fundraise to support apartheid, military occupation and illegal settlements is in violation of Ireland’s obligations not to assist in illegal situations. The claim that the Israel Bonds programme had to be approved because it met the technical standards required under the prospectus regulation is, in our view, entirely wrong. Nothing justifies the approval of a prospectus to raise funds for genocide, collective punishment, crimes against humanity and many other crimes. It is simply absurd to claim that the technical standards set out in the prospectus regulation set aside all other law. The prospectus is not complete. There is no mention made of the ICJ ruling, the charge of genocide at the ICJ, Israel’s profiteering from weaponry that is field-tested in Gaza, or the fact that the bonds will be repaid or may be repaid using the proceeds of crime.
Section 88 of the preamble states clearly that the regulation is to be interpreted and applied in accordance with the rights and principles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Section 88 and the incompleteness of the prospectus are clear grounds for withdrawing approval within the terms of the EU prospectus. To date, the Government has singularly failed to fulfil the State’s obligations under the Genocide Convention and under international law in general to take all measures within its power that might contribute to preventing the genocide. Stopping the flow of money to Israel from the sale of Israeli bonds is within the Government’s power. It is within its responsibility. That would have a deterrent effect on Israel economically and politically. It would signal an end to Israel’s impunity.
The Government has engaged in inaction, obfuscation, denial, defeat of a Bill to give the finance Minister the power to introduce national measures and defeat of a motion that simply called for the honouring of Ireland's obligations under international law. The Minister for Finance has claimed that the Central Bank is independent and the Government can do nothing. The Central Bank is an organ of the State and, as such, is obliged to honour the State’s obligations under international law. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that it does this. Section 6 of Central Bank Act 1942 gives the Minister for Finance the power to advise the Central Bank. The section states:
The Minister may, on such occasions as he shall think proper, request the Governor on behalf of the Board or the Board to consult and advise with him in regard to the execution and performance by the Bank of the general function and duty imposed on the Bank by the foregoing sub-section of this section, and the Board shall comply with every such request.
The Government has to take whatever action is required to end the sale of Israeli bonds under the authority of the Central Bank. This is not only a moral obligation; it is a legal obligation.
Ireland has recognised the State of Palestine. The people of Ireland stand overwhelmingly and resolutely with the people of Palestine. People all over this country are outraged that the Central Bank is facilitating the sale of Israeli bonds in Europe. Trade unions, civil society and solidarity organisations have called loudly and clearly for the ending of this funding of genocide. Councils all around the country voted unanimously to demand that the Central Bank stop funding genocide. These include Dublin City Council, Cork City Council, Donegal County Council, Fingal County Council, Kerry County Council, Kilkenny County Council, Waterford City and County Council and Wexford County Council. Motions are pending in many others.
The message from the people of Ireland is clear - stop funding genocide. Never again is never again for anyone. We ask this committee to do all in its power to stop the Central Bank aiding Israel to fund the genocide it is perpetrating in Gaza. We call on the Government to immediately direct the Central Bank to withdraw its approval of the State of Israel's bond programme - that is within its power - and to direct the Central Bank to stop facilitating the funding of genocide. We further call on the Government to take all necessary steps to end the involvement of the Central Bank in the funding of genocide and to enact emergency legislation to ensure that this will not happen again to stop the Central Bank in the future from funding genocide, apartheid, illegal settlements and war crimes.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will now invite members to discuss. I wish to remind members participating remotely to use the raise hand feature and to cancel it once they have spoken. In the order that I have received them, the contributions will be as follows: Deputy Brennan; Senator Higgins; Deputy Nash; Deputy Burke; Deputy Doherty; and Senators Murphy and O'Reilly. If there is a need for flexibility, we will discuss that later.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses. I appreciate them taking the time to join us and the detailed thought that has gone into their opening statements. I am absolutely horrified by the Israeli atrocities being carried out on the Palestinian people. I want Ireland to do everything within its influence to bring about a cessation of these actions without delay. Having read the opening statements, although we may agree on the end goal, we may not find ourselves fully aligned on the necessary immediate actions that Ireland should take.
I wish to ask three or four questions. I will ask a question, get a response and then ask the following question, if that is okay with the panel. Ms Mahony stated that Ireland had "the capacity to significantly diminish Israel’s ability to fundraise" and that we had the ability "to cut off approximately 23% of funds generated globally by Israel Bonds". Does Ms Mahony agree that the reality is that Israel would simply just move to another EU home state almost immediately and that the actual impact of our actions there vis-à-vis Israeli bonds would result in only a minor inconvenience to Israel?
Ms Helen Mahony:
The key issue is that Ireland should not be funding Israeli bonds. It should not be enabling them to be sold. That is the moral and the legal issue for Ireland. As to whether another country would take it up, that is like saying if I do not kill somebody, someone else will kill that person. It is a faulty argument. Ireland has a responsibility to end the sale of bonds. It is possible that, if we end our facilitation of the sale of Israeli bonds on the grounds that to continue doing it is against international law and the Genocide Convention, it would be virtually impossible for another country within the EU to take it up. The key thing for Ireland is we cannot remain complicit in genocide and supporting illegal situations. Ireland has to end the sale of Israeli bonds under the authority of the Central Bank.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to make a correction. Ms Mahony said at the outset that we were funding Israeli bonds; we are clearly not funding them.
The Central Bank is reviewing prospectuses. I just wanted to correct the record.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I fully agree. They cannot be sold without the certification. However, I would like it on record that we are not actually funding them. I take everything else the witness said.
Ms Mahony made reference to the Minster for Finance's ability to advise the Central Bank. Does Ms Mahony agree the Minister has absolutely no power or right under Irish or EU law to instruct the Central Bank to act in any way? Does she appreciate the principle and necessity of monetary policy independence and the consequences for breaching this?
Ms Helen Mahony:
I accept the Central Bank has independence in terms of monetary policy. I do not accept, nor could anybody, that an organ of the State can be complicit in genocide and that can be allowed to continue. The State has a responsibility to deal with that issue. Dr. Nuseibah may wish to come in on that.
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
Ireland, as I mentioned in my statement, is an independent State with full responsibility for the actions of any of its organs, including the Central Bank. Based on this, there seems to be a gap in the legal system which needs to be fixed. The fact the Central Bank says its code of conduct has a number of boxes to tick that does not include the Genocide Convention as well as other crimes means there is a problem with the due diligence expected from the Central Bank. This is exactly the problem the Parliament can fix. Of course, it is understandable the Central Bank is independent in the same way it is understandable the Judiciary is independent and any other commission of the State that has independence in its functions. It is very important to keep that independence. Nonetheless, if this independence does not also involve a code of conduct and a certain due diligence code that ensures, for example, in this case, the Central Bank is not authorising the sale of bonds that are used for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, human trafficking, drug trafficking and any other crimes, then there is a problem in the legal system that does not put these questions within the boxes that need to be checked and examined by the Central Bank. The suggestion is not to intervene in the financial work of the Central Bank but, rather, to intervene with regard to the boxes it needs to check. At the end of the day, anything the Central Bank does reflects on Ireland. Who is going to be held liable? Which state is going to be held liable? It is Ireland. Individuals can also be held criminally responsible for their contribution if they knowingly authorise. This can also lead to an individual's criminal responsibility according to Irish law and international law.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What does Dr. Nuseibah see as being the consequences of breaching EU prospectus regulations? The boxes being ticked, as the witness described them, are not prescribed by the Irish Government; they are prescribed by the EU under the EU prospectus regulation.
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
I am not an Irish politician. My area of expertise is international law. Obligations of international law are not equal. There is a hierarchy. Even if one is part of different international organisations, including membership of the EU or the UN or any other regional or other organisations, one might have obligations that sometimes must be breached in order to keep a higher obligation. It is like a constitution and the other laws within an internal legal system. If there is contradiction between law and a constitution, the constitution is higher. In the same way, peremptory norms of international law, for example, prevention of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, are higher than any other obligations and whenever there is a contradiction one always prioritises the higher over the lower in terms of obligations. Having said that, I am not a politician. I would still argue it is also important to explain to the European Union that one is restricting a state's bonds because of the way the money is being used. The European Union has peaceful ways of conflict resolution. Maybe it can go to court against Ireland and Ireland can say it had to compare its legal obligations and it had to prioritise. Ireland will win in the European court's legal system because, at the end of the day, the argument for doing it is not because it has just been decided. It is because there are International Court of Justice decisions and advisory opinions and other rules. This is what Ireland believes. As Ireland believes and understands Israel is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, it is only consistent with Irish policy. Even if there is a small conflict, it can be resolved through negotiations and through the courts. I am sure this can be resolved.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I appreciate Dr. Nuseibah is not an Irish politician and he appreciates I am not an international legal expert, which is why I am asking him questions. He might look at this situation through a purely legal lens but I am looking at the realpolitik of the situation. Hence, my next question. How much value do the witnesses place on Ireland's role within the EU relating to advocacy to fellow member states on Palestine's behalf? Does the panel agree that building on that advocacy within the EU is the most appropriate way for Ireland to proceed? Do they see any specific unilateral actions, such as those being put forward here on behalf of the Central Bank, that might be taken by Ireland as jeopardising our influence within the EU at this particularly critical time?
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the witnesses to be relatively succinct in responding.
Ms Helen Mahony:
The key issue is the Central Bank of Ireland is currently committing a crime. It is helping to fund genocide. That is the starting point. The starting point is to stop the harm being done, and it is urgent. I am sure everybody read today in The Irish Times that 51 people in Palestine were murdered as they queued for food. That is the reality. They were shot and subjected to Israeli tank fire. That is funded by Israeli bonds. The funding has to stop. In terms of the EU, there are a couple of things.
Ms Helen Mahony:
One which is really important is that within the terms of the EU prospectus itself it is perfectly reasonable to end the sale of Israeli bonds. This point has been made by members of the committee many times. It is certainly the case. The Central Bank is wrong in what it is saying, in our opinion. Certainly, there is an argument to be discussed there.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses. I agree. Ireland has had actual impact and credibility when it has taken action. I sat through two Oireachtas terms during which we were told we were trying to get people on board very slowly and when nothing was done, no legislation was moved forward and the occupied territories Bill and others were delayed.
In fact, the situation deteriorated during that period. Where Ireland has won influence in Europe has been when it has led, through recognition and is leading soon, I hope, in relation to the occupied territories Bill and the EU-Israel association agreement. It is actually Ireland's action that has had an impact, not holding back on action.
One issue that I have been consistent on is that international law and its paramouncy is perfect and I will come to a question on that presently. Within the prospectus itself, the witnesses mentioned paragraph 88 which explicitly references how all of this should be interpreted. This is the kind of due diligence we are talking about. Obviously when the prospectus was designed, they did not simply have a check box that says, if we tick these three boxes, it is okay. They also put in a paragraph that said this should all be interpreted in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. When we go to that charter, we see that it talks about universality in relation to human rights and also obligations in terms of the rule of law. It strikes me that due diligence is not simply three keywords. The prospectus itself anticipated that there may be a need to interpret this and have reference to rights. That was in paragraph 88, which I believe is a sufficient basis. I ask our guests to give their view as to whether it is a sufficient basis if the Central Bank had chosen to lean on that paragraph and apply an interpretation in terms of the rule of law.
The other aspect of this is completeness, which our guests mentioned. The three categories, we are told constantly, are required. They are comprehensibility, consistency between the advertisements and the prospectus and completeness but in the bonds, it seems to be the case that there is an issue with completeness. I ask our guests to elaborate on this. The bank would have had powers to, at a minimum, request complete information. One point that our guests have highlighted as missing is a reference to the ICJ interim ruling from January. There is a single line that says that South Africa has taken a case against Israel but it does not mention that the case is under the Genocide Convention. There is no reference to the battle testing issue or the ICJ ruling from July in relation to illegally occupied territories. They seem to me to be very big missing pieces. I ask our guests to elaborate on what they believe the bank could have done under the many powers it has in relation to those issues.
I have a question for Dr. Nuseibah on the ruling from July 2024. He referenced the paragraph about assisting but I want to highlight a different paragraph, namely, No. 278, which talks about how member states have an obligation to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. Again, this is an active duty or obligation to "prevent" trade or investment. We have focused a lot on the Genocide Convention but I ask our guests to talk some more about that ruling related to the illegally occupied territories. There are two aspects of it that we were just beginning to unpick at the end of the Central Bank's session last week. There is the question of the funds because as I understand it, the prospectus indicates that the funds go into the general Israeli expenditure. We know that $6.5 billion has been spent by the state of Israel on the construction of settlement buildings, internal roads, utilities and so on. That is leaving aside the funding of the Israel Defense Forces, IDF. How clear is the argument that these funds are being used to assist in the maintenance of an illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied territories?
Separately, although I want to join the two together, we come to the point on risk. The ultimate obligation under the prospectus is to protect investors from risk. Leaving aside the risk to states, which our guests have been very clear on, including the risk that Ireland is taking by not acting, the risk for investors does not seem to have been properly addressed. There is a risk of them contributing to illegal actions but also, because they are paid centrally from the Israeli Exchequer which gathers VAT, tax, revenue and profits from illegally occupied territories, they are potentially being paid from a pool which draws from illegally acquired funds. I ask our guests to comment on the other ruling on the occupied territories because that, it seems, is really crystal clear. I ask them to talk about the risk for the State in relation to that ruling and also the risk to investors, which goes back to my point to Ms Mahony, which was the question of whether they were even doing what they were meant to be doing under the prospectus regulation.
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
First, I want to mention one more case that is very relevant and important, which Ireland should look at. I refer to the case of Nicaragua v. Germany. It is covered much less in the media so many people do not know much about it but it is very relevant to this discussion. Nicaragua filed a case in the ICJ against Germany a year ago in which it argues that by supporting Israel during a time of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other violations of international humanitarian law, Germany must be held liable for that contribution. This is an important case because it is not about Israel but about Germany. It is about the German contribution to crimes on the basis of the relationship that Germany has with Israel. Of course, there is no decision yet. We will have to wait for a few years for that decision but it is my expectation that the court will find Germany liable for a number of acts it has done to support Israel, because of Israel's violations. That is important to take into account when considering Ireland's responsibility.
Regarding the advisory opinion, it was requested from the UN General Assembly. The question was, first, about the consequences of the continued Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory, including the settlement building and other measures that Israel is taking in the occupied territory. The question was also about the discriminatory measures that Israel is taking against the Palestinian people. After deliberations in the court, which was the biggest case in terms of state contributions to the court's deliberations, the court found that the ongoing Israeli presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is contrary to international law for several reasons. On the one hand, it violates the Palestinian right to self-determination on a basis that is intended to be permanent through the colonisation of the occupied Palestinian territory, the forcible displacement and many other ongoing violations. In addition, the court found that Israel is breaching Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, CERD, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. Basically, the court has also found that an apartheid regime is being implemented, at least within the occupied Palestinian territory. At the end of this advisory opinion, the court established the responsibilities. On the one hand, there is the responsibility of Israel to end the occupation and, on the other hand, there is responsibility of every country around the world not to support and also to prevent these crimes from being committed.
Ms Helen Mahony:
Briefly, section 88 as a preamble is absolutely crucial. It says that the prospectus regulation must be in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
That is not optional. It is absolutely essential. The prospectus is seriously incomplete. It amounts to the withholding of risk-related information from investors. There are a couple of relevant sections in the prospectus regulation, including recital 54 and Article 16. Both of those require the issuer to provide complete information, especially in respect of risk. It does not.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My specific question was not about that ruling but around the risk piece. We were told by Mr. Makhlouf that in the end, whether Israel can pay back bonds was the question the Central Bank was asking. If there is a risk of those bonds being paid back from moneys that are gathered in revenue from illegally occupied territories, where does that come into due diligence? We have heard suggestions that there may be money-laundering implications. Is that not also a risk to investors? I would like a brief comment on how the money that is being paid back is coming in.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Our witnesses are very welcome. I am conscious that Dr. Nuseibah needs to leave the meeting at 5 p.m., so time is of the essence. I am happy to limit my questions on the basis that my colleagues wish to put questions to him before he leaves. I thank him for being here today. I also thank him for the intellectual and legal clarity he has brought to the debate. We did not need moral or ethical clarity because we have it, but Dr. Nuseibah has brought a welcome intellectual clarity, as has Ms Mahony. I thank them. We are appreciative.
It seems that the Central Bank of Ireland is confusing its independence on financial and monetary matters with the actual responsibilities and obligations it has in the context of Ireland being a signatory to the Genocide Convention, other matters of international law, including treaties, and international legal norms. Regardless of where each of us sits on the political spectrum - left, right or centre - we pride ourselves on being a State with a commitment to multilateralism and international solidarity. That is common across the political spectrum. There are, however, clear differences of opinion on the Central Bank's position, what some people think it ought to do and what it can do. We have different views on that issue. I thank the witnesses for the clarity they have brought to the situation. It is clarity that, based on similar advice I received, was not required by me in any case.
Dr. Nuseibah may not have had the chance to look in detail at the comments made by the Governor of the Central Bank before the committee last week. During questioning from me, he went further than he had previously, to the best of my recollection, in some of the responses and remarks he made in the context of the potential Irish reconsideration of any application that may come before the Central Bank over the next few weeks as the current prospectus expires. The Central Bank will be required to renew it, if requested to do so, by 1 September. I asked him what kinds of questions he will be asking the Israeli state and system. He mentioned something important. He said he will be asking questions, for example, around the financial stability and risk of the Israeli state. Given the genocidal operation in which it is involved, it clear to everybody that there will inevitably be a financial risk to the stability of the Israeli state on the basis of what is happening at the moment and what it is involved in. That is a significant thing for someone from the Central Bank, who is not prone to political expression, to say. Does Dr. Nuseibah think that in itself is significant?
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
It is very significant. I read this questioning and heard that quote from the questioning. It was clear from the testimony of Mr. Makhlouf that he understands his mission as very technical, whereby it only deals with securing the risks for returning the money and the financial risk associated with the bonds, and nothing else. He said that in many different ways while answering different questions. It was important testimony for the Irish Legislature to consider. At the end of the day, I believe this is true. That is exactly what he is saying. He sees his role and that of the bank as technical, without looking into the legal framework that Ireland as a state is bound by through international law, including treaties, customs, etc. It means that in the work of the Central Bank, Ireland can be held liable only because the Central Bank does not understand or consider the full legal framework that binds Ireland. The Central Bank is an organ of the State. It is not independent.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a nonsense, in my view. The point about the primacy or otherwise of the preamble, paragraph 88, is important because little weight or consideration has been given to that. My own view is that there is an obligation on the Central Bank to do that but it has not. Rather, it selectively quoted its technical responsibilities, if I can put it like that, and its requirement, as it sees it, to approve the prospectus.
Is Dr. Nuseibah aware of any cases of central banks in other EU member states where they may have decided not to renew or to cancel a prospectus in respect of the sale of bonds for a non-EU member state and where any legal action was taken against them for doing so? I am not aware of any, but it is a matter we should all explore.
There are one or two other points that I would like to make more generally. Dr. Nuseibah made an important point towards the end of his contribution about the potential risks and liabilities to the Irish Central Bank in this regard. Could he elaborate a little more on what they will be in the context of international law and his understanding of it?
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
There are two types of responsibility stemming from breaches of international law, especially when we are talking about peremptory norms of international law and international crimes. The first is state responsibility. If a state is doing a wrongful act that is ongoing, the first responsibility is that it must stop the act immediately. Second, it must provide guarantees of non-repetition. Third, it must provide reparations. Those reparations would include restitution, which is impossible in this situation because there is no way to get the situation back to the way it existed before the violation that Ireland is currently doing. It must also provide compensation, which is money that is given to the victims who endured the ongoing violation. It must also provide satisfaction, which is an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing. This is one type of responsibility called state responsibility.
The second type is individual criminal responsibility. It is the responsibility globally recognised after the Nuremberg tribunals. War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression are all international crimes that can be prosecuted in international courts, such as the International Criminal Court, or at international tribunals. They can also be prosecuted within domestic courts. Even the prosecutor in Ireland can examine whatever is related to this crime and can accuse individuals of the crime if he or she finds they knowingly contributed to a certain crime.
From Ireland’s point of view, it is important to ensure Ireland is not engaged in these actions, both for Ireland’s interest and in order to protect individuals who are in charge or in important positions from being criminally liable for these acts that are allowing another country to raise funds for crimes.
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today and for their presentation. In starting, I wish to say that I have been in Gaza. I was there in 2009. The warnings I gave when I was a member of the European Parliament at that time have come home to roost in the sense of the dangers. It was during the changeover of the American Presidency between 27 September 2008 and 18 January 2009 that Israel bombed Gaza, killing 1,400 people, including 400 children. The issue is on a far greater scale now, with at least 25,000 innocent children killed and some 60,000 to 70,000 people killed in total. I am very much aware of the challenges there.
The witnesses have come in strong and more or less said the Government is not doing a good job in dealing with this issue. The witnesses have to accept that the Irish Government, from a European point of view, has been to the forefront in highlighting the issue, both at a European and international level, especially through our diplomatic involvement in the UN. Do they accept the Irish Government has done a huge amount of work, both behind the scenes and publicly, when it comes to our stance on what Israel is doing?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a general question. I will come back to the Central Bank issue. I wish to tease this one out because the impression being given is that the Irish Government has done absolutely nothing on this issue. That has been the presentation here. It is important we get it balanced. I will come back to the issue of the Central Bank, but I am asking another question. Do the witnesses believe the Irish Government has been to the forefront in trying to get other countries on board, both at a European level and also in the work it has done within the UN, especially in the diplomatic services within the UN?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has the Irish Government fallen down in any area in dealing with the UN or at a European level?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I said I would come back to the Central Bank. I am asking Ms Mahony a specific question. Does she believe Ireland has fallen down at any level, from a European point of view, outside of the Central Bank issue, which I will come back to? At both European and UN level, has the Irish Government fallen down in any way in its role as a State in highlighting the atrocities that are occurring in Gaza?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am talking about working-----
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----at an international level. At international and UN levels, does Ms Mahony accept the Irish Government has highlighted all of the atrocities and the wrongs that have been done in Gaza? Does she accept the Irish Government has done that?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a straight question. It is a yes-no answer. Does Ms Mahony accept that the Irish Government has done everything possible at UN and European Union levels on the issue of Gaza?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a yes-no answer.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is the way committee meetings are conducted. It is done in a pushing-for-answers kind of way.
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What more could have been done at an international level, specifically from a UN point of view?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am talking about working-----
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
You are not dealing-----
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
You are not dealing with the question. The question is simple. Do you believe that Ireland, working at both a UN and European Union level, has done everything possible it can do? At a European level, there are only three or four other countries on board with Ireland. Does Ms Mahony accept that?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. I will move on to the issue of the Central Bank and what Ms Mahony is saying in this regard. At a meeting of this committee last week, the Governor of the Central Bank said, “For the avoidance of doubt, the Central Bank does not issue, sell, trade or list bonds". Does Ms Mahony accept that is correct?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. She accepts that the Central Bank does not issue, sell, trade or list Israeli bonds.
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That clarifies that issue. Dr. Nuseibah talked about international law and breaches of international law. I am sorry for going through this in a robust way, but it is important there is a balance on this issue when it comes to the Irish Government's involvement. As I said, I have been to Gaza. I have highlighted the issue. I did 17 hours of television footage in Gaza, which anyone can see online at any time if they so wish.
From a legal point of view, if Dr. Nuseibah believes the Central Bank is breaking the law, from an international point of view, could someone here in Ireland - I asked the same question of the Central Bank last week - apply to the High Court to stop the Central Bank's involvement?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Hold on. You are a legal expert. You are in contact with legal experts every day of the week. Is this not an issue you have teased out with the legal experts?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If someone decided in the morning that they wanted to go to the High Court to stop the Central Bank from approving the prospectus, is there a right of legal action in that regard?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are a lot of people who believe what the Central Bank is doing is wrong. Does Dr. Nuseibah believe such an action should be started at this stage?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
From an international point of view, does he believe there is a legal action against the Irish Central Bank?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. Dr. Nuseibah also gave a view regarding the Central Bank sanction. If the Central Bank does not approve the prospectus, does he accept there is nothing preventing Israel from going to another member state of the European Union for the same approval?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Therefore, no matter what the Central Bank does, we could still have another European Union country approving the prospectus.
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In other words, the Central Bank, in real terms, is a formula that Israel has decided to use. If the Central Bank decides not to approve the prospectus the next time, which I hope it does, does he accept there is nothing preventing Israel from going to another European state, getting a comparable prospectus approved and proceeding with the raising of money?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I fully accept that. I am just putting the question. What I am saying is that by the Central Bank not doing it, it does not stop the money being raised.
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
It shields Ireland. We want to shield Ireland. While we may not be able to stop the crimes, we will be able to shield Ireland as a State and those in Ireland, including individuals like the Central Bank officials, from responsibility and liability. That is what I am suggesting.
I am not saying that if Ireland stops authorising the-----
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In relation to legal responsibility, does Dr. Nuseibah accept there are European countries selling arms to Israel?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Therefore, would those countries not be to the forefront, if any action were being taken at an international level against countries that are openly supplying arms to Israel?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
From an international point of view, and as I said, I was there in 2019, nothing has happened in those 16 years except more atrocities and more people killed. As I explained to everyone in Ireland, Gaza is 41 km long by 10 km wide with 2 million people locked in. We are talking about the International Court of Justice, action being taken by South Africa there, and a whole lot of other sanctions at UN level, but we still have a major problem as regards any action being taken against Israel.
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is because of US support. Does Dr. Nuseibah accept that from an international point of view, the action Ireland can take is very restricted because of the support Israel is getting from the US?
Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not going to happen, as Dr. Nuseibah knows, while the United States is on board. It is likewise regarding UN control. For instance, it is now ten years since the UN gave sanction for peacekeeping troops being deployed in a whole lot of areas. I am saying that Dr. Nuseibah has to accept that while the United States is supporting Israel, no matter what Ireland does, it is very restricted as regards having any real influence in real terms.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We need to start wrapping up on this.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Dr. Nuseibah answer briefly? There will be more questions.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a couple of quick questions. We can try to keep it brief. Do the witnesses accept that the Irish Central Bank is the only central bank in Europe that is authorising the sale of Israeli war bonds?
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Without the Central Bank's authorisation, Israeli war bonds could not be offered anywhere in Europe at this point.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the same billions of euro, possibly, that is funding the bombs and bullets used to attack and kill those 51 people, as was mentioned, who were queueing up for food.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The word we use is "authorisation". As we stand, that money could not be raised in Europe without the authorisation.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Following on from the previous questioner, based on Dr. Nuseibah's legal expertise, is it a defence under international law to say that we did not facilitate the funding of genocide because we thought some other European country would just facilitate it anyway?
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Going to Deputy Brennan's question on funding, do the witnesses accept that Ireland is funding or potentially funding genocide because ISIF, which is an organ of the State, has invested in these bonds? We have not got ISIF's annual report, which is usually out in June. I do not know why it is not earlier. Do the witnesses accept that millions of euro were raised in Israeli bonds and, while we do not know where that money went, we know that these are involved in a genocide?
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Legislation has been prepared that, unfortunately, has not gone further because certain people voted against it, obviously. There was a majority and that is democracy. A very compelling argument has been made regarding the Central Bank so I will focus on that. The Central Bank states that it does not fall under the Genocide Convention. Is that a legal position? Can the Central Bank say that it is removed from the Genocide Convention or does the responsibility fall on the State? It has been made very clear that the responsibility falls on the State and all its organs, but is there a responsibility on the Central Bank itself? Do the witnesses dispute what the governor said?
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The responsibility under the Genocide Convention compels us all to make sure that we are not supporting genocide, which we all accept is happening. In fairness to the Government, it has recognised that what is happening in Palestine is a genocide. That is very welcome. We have a legal obligation to make sure that we are not supporting and funding genocide.
The Central Bank has made it clear, whatever we think about the Central Bank not agreeing the prospectus, that if there are national restrictive measures, that would compel it to not allow the facilitation of Israeli war bonds. I am not sure whether Dr. Nuseibah, Ms Mahony or anybody had an opportunity to look at the legislation that was drafted. Do they concur with the legal advisers and parliamentary advisers to the Irish Parliament that this is not only compatible with domestic law and the Irish Constitution but also compatible with EU law, which is the only published legal advice available to us as politicians?
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
Of course. My main conclusion is that there is an immediate need for legal reform because the gap that has been highlighted by the Governor of the Central Bank shows that Irish law is not being consistent. If the Central Bank believes that it is only bound by certain rules that do not include genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, this highlights a gap that needs to be bridged and the need for legal reform. The members are the legislators.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is only fair to say that there will be those, and people have voted against the legislation, who say that by doing this the State is not complicit in genocide. They will argue that. Politicians who voted against national restrictive measures to stop these war bonds being sold in Europe and Ireland will say that we are not complicit. Do the witnesses have a different view? These are very strong words. It is a strong accusation to make and I am just asking them to elaborate.
Ms Helen Mahony:
Absolutely. The bonds would not be sold in Europe without the authorisation from the Central Bank. It is the enabling cog in Israel's fundraising machine in Europe. There is an obligation to have that stopped immediately. The Governor of the Central Bank could suspend those bonds tomorrow. The Minister for Finance could direct the Central Bank to suspend those bonds tomorrow. We should then have legislation to back that up to ensure it never happens again. Let us remember that something like €9 million per day has been raised, if we average out the figures we have over the 16-month period. Money is going every single day to fund the genocide in Gaza. This is an urgent matter. It really needs to be revisited by the Parliament and we need to end the sale of the Israel bonds immediately.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is not much I can say. I drafted the legislation. We will try to see if we can get it back up again. I thank the representatives for their work and their robustness in answering the committee's questions. I will not elaborate on what is happening in Palestine. It is absolutely heartbreaking and horrific. It is why I concur that this issue is so important. I have no doubt history will look very badly upon this State unless we make a direction. Good things have been done by the Government and others have followed. I argue that national restrictive measures in this State would mean that another country that was asked to approve a prospectus would seriously think about it, given what Ireland should have done and, hopefully, will still do. I thank the witnesses for their presentation and for answering the questions.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I also thank the witnesses for their presentations and for some of the clarity they brought to some of the issues we discussed last week with representatives from the Central Bank. I have not had the opportunity to go to Gaza or Palestine but, with whatever limitations, I have expressed my support for the people there.
It is very important to continue to raise our voices and continue to highlight the atrocities that go on there on a daily basis. However, it is even more important to take all actions possible to do that. Actions, as always, are much stronger than words so it is incumbent on us to try to ensure the actions we can take are taken to immediately prevent the ongoing financial support for atrocities being carried out there.
One of the arguments against the Bill Deputy Doherty produced was that Ireland was bound by European law in this matter and could not act on its own. We have had a slightly different interpretation from the Central Bank from its original interpretation of how it could be compelled to act against doing what it is currently doing. My interpretation of evidence given in response to some of the questions, which not part of the statement last week by the Governor of the Central Bank but is just my interpretation of what he said, was that European law does not allow the bank to prevent this being done by the bank. It does not allow it to say it will not do this. The issue of Russia arose as part of the discussion. The Governor effectively said that European law had to be set aside by the European states politically in order to take sanction measures against Russia and that it was not permissible under European law. What does Dr. Nuseibah think of the idea that European law does not allow member states or the institutions themselves to do this unless they set aside this law and take a political decision? We had a conversation at an earlier committee during discussion of the omnibus legislation on European regulations. I asked the departmental officials about Israeli war bonds because while that is removing some regulations and reporting, it is actually strengthening them in relation to human rights risks, and I asked whether that would have an impact on the Central Bank. I did not get a clear answer, as has been the case from the State to date. The argument is that European law must be set aside to allow any of the member states to take action against anywhere, and the example of Russia was cited. I am not a legal expert and that is why I am happy to hear the witnesses' views on it, but surely the international conventions in relation to genocide and international war crimes do not mean that European law prevents any action in this regard. Is it the case that the European states have set that aside as a political decision for them to take, as against what they are required to do under international law?
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
This is exactly the issue. First, European Union law is international law because ultimately it is treaties, conventions, etc. among different European states. However, there are other international laws, including, for example, the Genocide Convention and many others. One of my main arguments is that if we find European law, which is part of international law, contradicts the Genocide Convention or any other obligation for Ireland under international law, peremptory norms of international law are higher than European law. Therefore, the commitment to prevent genocide, not to participate in genocide and not to contribute to war crimes and crimes against humanity is higher than any of the other laws that the European Union, or any other region for that matter, upholds. That is the first thing.
However, European law also states obligations for European rights. Ireland is one of the countries that has made an important step recently, with other countries at European Union level, to revise the association agreement with Israel based on its breaches of human rights. I do not think European law is not sustaining the prevention of genocide. Rather, no action is being taken by states, so it is more of a political issue than a legal one. However, if Ireland decided it would take action and take its legal responsibility seriously, it would become a legal issue and other European countries that disagreed with Ireland, such as Germany – I do not want to start naming the countries I expect – could take negotiations, legal action, etc., if they saw that Ireland’s interpretation of its international legal responsibilities in an holistic way was wrong. I do not think that will happen, by the way. It is very difficult right now to defend a point of view that Israeli sovereign bonds should be authorised, given all the evidence we have about the way Israel is using this money. This argument cannot be sustained if it is going to be examined.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it Dr. Nuseibah’s understanding as a scholar of international law that the argument that was put forward, whereby European law prevents this and it cannot be done unless European law is set aside, is not factually correct?
Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Governor appeared to proffer an argument at the previous meeting that European law prevents the Central Bank from taking any action that would put a stop to facilitating Israeli war bonds, unless European states decide to set aside that law and take political action. Is that argument incorrect?
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
First, I do not think it is a correct interpretation of European law. Second, even if it was true and even if it was contradicting, the prevention of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is at a higher level, above any other law, and therefore, if a contradiction indeed exists, as Mr. Makhlouf highlighted in response to questions, we know which law should prevail.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I take Dr. Nuseibah’s point that it is in Ireland’s interest in terms of potential future jeopardy to ensure that we are on the correct side of this but that it is in Ireland’s interest as a nation, for the sake of our own souls, to make sure we are on the correct side in this. The argument that the biggest bullies in the playground continue to beat up on the small guy and that, therefore, we cannot intervene is a false argument.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome our guests and my former colleague from college. It is good to see you again. It is worth saying at the outset that we are individually and collectively horrified by the genocide in the form of the bombing and the starvation and indeed the recent spate of illegal settlements in the West Bank. The focus on the West Bank has naturally been lost a bit, but that is a horror too. I have been saying all this repeatedly as my party's foreign affairs spokesperson in the Seanad over many years and at plenary and committee meetings of the Council of Europe on occasions when I am one of the Irish representatives. That is all on the record.
I have some questions for Dr. Nuseibah before I turn to Ms Mahony, if I may. I do not mind if they both wish to answer. First, Dr. Nuseibah used the term “jus cogens norms” that are binding on states.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sorry, there is a vote in the Seanad. I wanted to highlight that for the Senator.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will I have time? Does the Cathaoirleach know if it has started?
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Unfortunately, we do not have the bells here.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will keep going and I might make it yet. I will ask all the questions.
Do these “jus cogens norms” mean there is a general binding nature there but that they are not absolutely binding?
That leads to my second question, in relation to EU law under the Treaty of Rome. Is it not a term of the Treaty of Rome that EU law in the form of regulations and directives, etc., is binding in Ireland and therefore, as the Governor said, is it not the case that he is bound by EU law? All the questions this week and last week from everyone are coming from the position I mentioned at the start.
Third, can the Central Bank function normally if conditions like this are imposed on it by the Government?
We could question the purpose of a number of bonds, in addition to the nature of those products, whether they could ultimately result in our being complicit in murder or various other forms of crime and whether they have been issued by rogue states. What I am trying to ask is, if we start to limit the Central Bank in this fashion, where do we stop? Is a logical sequitur of the argument not that there would have to be moral policing of the Central Bank all the time? Where would it begin or end?
We are going to implement the occupied territories Bill and, as the Tánaiste said, we are open to including services in it. Do the delegates accept that this represents very considerable progress? I believe we should do it with great speed.
My last question is for Ms Mahony because it has a more domestic quality. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, has stated he has legal advice, which we assume comes from the Attorney General, to the effect that the Central Bank must be independent in this sphere. Ms Mahony might comment on that.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious that the voting bell started a minute or two before the Senator started speaking. He has used about four minutes. The Senator may leave when necessary. I understand Dr. Nuseibah must also leave at some point.
Dr. Munir Nuseibah:
Jus cogens norms are binding and are the highest norms in international law, to the extent that states cannot agree to breach them. They are at the top of the top of the rules of international law and therefore are absolutely binding for every country in the world. Maybe because they are not always enforced, such as in the case of a genocide or war crimes that are not being stopped, people assume this means they are just general advice and not very binding or important. However, legally speaking, these laws are the highest form of law and can be enforced even long after the event. For example, if someone commits a war crime today, he or she can be prosecuted domestically or internationally 50 years from today. There are examples and precedent relating to individuals prosecuted for crimes they carried out decades earlier. That is the reality of international law that has been established since the Nuremberg tribunals in the aftermath of the Second World War.
With regard to policing the Central Bank, the idea is not to erase its independence in financial matters. However, it is important that due diligence be applied to the work of the Central Bank because, if not, it is likely to authorise crimes like the ones we have mentioned, and also perhaps terrorism and human trafficking. Many other crimes could be authorised through Ireland. This is not a situation that Ireland wants to be involved in.
With regard to the progress with the OPT law, Ireland, through its diplomacy, is doing much better than others, especially in the European context although maybe not by comparison with every country around the world. It is very progressive but it is important that we close the gaps where Ireland can be complicit or a participant because of circumstances such as those concerning the Central Bank or the arms trade-----
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could we facetiously say that if we were to apply moral criteria to the bonds and impose rules on them other than those associated with the prospectus outlined last week, we might have very few bonds? Where do we begin and end with this kind of thing?
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is simplistic to say this but bonds connected to cigarette or alcohol companies and bonds of several rogue states, for example, are killing people daily. How does this work in practice?
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is Senator O'Reilly finished?
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Nuseibah has answered. Ms Mahony will take up the other points.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
You absolutely may. Have a safe flight.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Mahony or Mr. Marmion may like to continue.
Mr. Seán Marmion:
Senator O'Reilly talked about the response of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe. That has been dealt with in connection with the question of whether the Central Bank has been independent. It has been well dealt with today. The Senator also referred to the Attorney General's advice. In the debate on the Sinn Féin Bill on the Israeli war bonds, the Minister quoted Article 215. I understand that the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, has written that that actually has no bearing whatsoever on the Bill. In this regard, I want to quote a small passage from our submission that takes this up. I should say I am a former employee of the Central Bank and am now retired. I do not hold any personal animosity against it and really enjoyed working there but was shocked, like many colleagues, when I heard it was facilitating Israeli war bonds. The Central Bank wrote to the finance committee in December last year after the Governor had appeared before it last October. He stated he would adhere to any financial restrictions or sanctions imposed under law. This was an open invitation to the Government to introduce a restriction to stop the sale of Israeli war bonds in the EU. The Government not only failed to act but also opposed the recent Sinn Féin Restricted Financial Measures (State of Israel) Bill, which would have done exactly that. The Bill sought to empower the Minister for Finance to make regulations imposing restrictive measures in respect of securities issued on behalf of the State of Israel. It was underpinned by the ICJ advisory opinion of July and also informed by the advice of OPLA, which stated we "can provide for restricted access to its financial services on the basis of public policy grounds that are rooted in the Ireland's fundamental interest in pursuing its international law obligations". The Government has not tried in any meaningful way to set out a legal argument against this Bill. It has said it has legal advice from the Attorney General but has not made this available. It invokes the Attorney General as a barrier to action instead of simply setting out its legal arguments. We have seen this played out as a barrier to action in the occupied territories Bill.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With respect, it is normal practice to seek the Attorney General's advice.
Once the Government appoints an Attorney General, it must seek the Attorney General's advice on legislation and has to go by it. What does Mr. Marmion say to that?
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have to wrap up on this but there will be time for a second round.
Mr. Seán Marmion:
I wanted to say that the Attorney General has been used as a barrier, particularly if we look at the occupied territories Bill. It was passed in 2018 and then we had all the backwards and forwards on whether it was lawful. Senator Frances Black, who introduced it, got further legal advice to show that it was legal. When we had the ruling in July last year, the Government said that would allow it to pass the occupied territories Bill. In January of this year, the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, said that virtually every section of the Bill would have to be amended. Regarding the Attorney General's advice, he said that was actually a political choice.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will come back to it. I need to move on to an Teachta Timmins. I can then follow up with my own questions.
Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming. It is good to hear from them. I will be brief as much has been covered. Everyone is horrified at what is happening, without question. We are unanimous across this House. I can state that about anyone I have ever spoken to. The Government is as determined as anyone to stop the actions of Israel, including on the issue of bonds. We have been European leaders on this, which I think is often not recognised. I also think the only thing that will stop the destruction in Gaza is the US. They are the people who have the control and who are backing Israel. That is why the situation is continuing. We should do everything we can but in many ways that should be the focus. What do we do? The EU has not backed us in the recognition of Palestine and other stuff we have done. Would the witnesses recommend that we exit the EU or raise the issue with the US? What can we do practically? I see the US as being the main controller of what is going on. It is the only country with power to stop what is going on. Will the witnesses comment briefly on that?
Ms Helen Mahony:
The issue is really simple. The Central Bank of Ireland has the ability to end the sale of Israel Bonds in Europe right now by withdrawing authorisation. That is possible within the terms of the EU prospectus by invoking the Genocide Convention. It is possible within the narrow terms of the prospectus regulation by recognising that the information it has got is incomplete and does not take account of section 88. There is no question about it. The Central Bank could do it tomorrow. It has refused. We have been arguing and demonstrating. The whole of this country is calling for the end of the sale of Israel Bonds under the authority of the Central Bank and the Central Bank is not listening. That is a political problem. The other part of the problem is that the Minister for Finance is playing smoke and mirrors with responsibility and hiding behind the so-called independence of the Central Bank. The Government has to tell the Central Bank to stop funding genocide. It is really straightforward. It is not complicated. It can be done and it should be done immediately.
Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Mahony has probably answered my second question. I reject her assessment that our Minister for Finance is playing smoke and mirrors. I have spoken to him and his team about this. They are absolutely not. I completely reject that claim. I believe he is as outraged, as are all members of the Government, as anyone on any bench in this House. I completely reject that assessment. Last week, I and others questioned the Central Bank in real detail about the legal position and what possibilities were open to it. It gave us robust answers about why it could not do it. It was not just a matter of refusing. Initially, it indicated the circumstances were changing but then made it absolutely clear that there was no possibility of it acting on the prospectus. Everyone here drilled the Central Bank. We were here until 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. last Wednesday. The Central Bank was very clear that its legal position would not allow it to act.
Mr. Seán Marmion:
When the Central Bank appeared in October last year, it was questioned by a number of TDs. One of the questions that was put to it was whether it took account of the ICJ January ruling. The bank published a report on 4 December, which, incidentally, was a week after the committee dissolved. The question on page 19 jumps out to me. It is whether the Central Bank took into account the January ruling of the ICJ. The answer is that the Central Bank looked at the court ruling, but it did not actually answer the question. We did a freedom of information request in December, which is available on the website of the Central Bank, which shows that up to 18 of the most senior people in the Central Bank wrote, reviewed and approved that statement. I am talking about the governor, the three deputy governors, the chief operations officer, the legal advisers, all the department heads-----
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask Mr. Marmion not to name anyone specifically.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understand. Just do not name anybody specific.
Mr. Seán Marmion:
The point I am trying to make is that all of these people reviewed this and failed to answer the question. It was totally unconscionable that that could have happened. That showed that they wanted to avoid the Genocide Convention and the implications it has for them. This time around, the governor mentioned it but he said it does not apply when it comes to the EU prospectus. We also had the deputy governor saying that the Central Bank is not a party to the Genocide Convention.
Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is Mr. Marmion saying that what he stated here was wrong?
Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To be clear, is Mr. Marmion saying that what the Governor of the Central Bank said here last Wednesday was incorrect?
Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is fine. I have one more question. When we, including Deputy Brennan and others, and maybe me, asked the Central Bank last week about what level of funding was raised through the issuing of bonds through the EU, the governor stated that the funds raised were in the order of €100 million to €150 million. I do not have an exact time period, though maybe since the last prospectus, so maybe 2023. Do the witnesses accept that figure that he stated here last week?
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is up to the member because it is the member's time.
Ms Helen Mahony:
To clarify this, the amendment that the Government made to the emergency motion, which basically destroyed the emergency motion, states that the Central Bank "has clearly stated that an Advisory Opinion of the ICJ, or indeed the processes of the ICC does not constitute grounds for the CBI to refuse the prospectus". The ICJ advisory ruling has been well and truly accepted as the basis for moving on the occupied territories Bill. It sets out conditions that apply to this country, so it covers the organ of the State, which is the Central Bank.
The Central Bank is so wrong in so much of what it is saying at the moment.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There were a few interesting things said this evening. Dr. Nuseibah mentioned that individuals are obviously also bound by the Genocide Convention, and it could have a long-term impact on individuals. There was also a discussion last week about whether the Central Bank or the State are bound by the Genocide Convention, and the impact that has. My understanding from what Dr. Nuseibah said is that it is the State, but that there are direct implications because the Central Bank is an organ of the State. There are then the ways by which individuals are bound. Will Dr. Nuseibah comment on that? As Chair, I ask that no names are mentioned.
Ms Helen Mahony:
The State is responsible for the organs of State under the ICJ ruling. Separately, individuals, whether they be in a bank, or any other business are liable as individuals. They are liable for criminal prosecution. There is a section in our submission that deals with the UN guiding principles for businesses and the OECD recommendations for financial institutions. This has been set out in other documents from the UN. It is clearly set out that a company can be liable and is liable and is obligated to abide by the responsibility to protect human rights in all of its businesses. There is also lots of guidance for financial institutions.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When I had to cut Mr. Marmion short, he seemed to be implying that he felt this was a political decision rather than a legal decision due to the obligations under the Genocide Convention. Will he finish what he was saying on that?
Mr. Seán Marmion:
The point I was making was that we looked at the occupied territories Bill and how that has been played out since 2018. When we got to January 2025, Mícheál Martin said that virtually every section of the occupied territories Bill needs to be amended and that he had got this from legal advice. When the legal advice of the Attorney General was published by The Ditch it stated that amending the occupied territories Bill was a political choice.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
One of the concepts raised a number of times during today's meeting is the role of the US in all of this. Speaking as someone who is half-German, never again means never again, as Ms Mahony mentioned. I obviously feel strongly about that. I firmly believe everybody has a responsibility at times like this to put their head above the parapet. However, let us take a look at the US responsibility. What does the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Committee believe this State could do to impact on the US's role? Shannon Airport and airspace were mentioned.
Ms Helen Mahony:
The position of the IPSC, in common with many people in the country, is that the US should not have unfettered use of Shannon Airport and the ability to bring whatever it wishes through Shannon Airport. Similarly, the airspace should not be used to transport munitions. Two of the key areas of active complicity by this country relate to the transport of arms to Israel. There are actually three, because there is also the export of dual-use goods to Israel. However, the funding of munitions, the IDF and all of the war crimes is one of the key areas of active complicity. As individuals, as committees and as organisations, we all have to do whatever we can to stop this. It can be stopped. It is not complicated. We really have to work at every level. I appeal to people who voted against the emergency motion and the Bill to look to their consciences when it comes before the Dáil again. This is a moral issue as well as public one.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The anti-money laundering directive is an issue I raised with the Central Bank. As somebody who has worked in banks, every year we had to do anti-money laundering training. What is the witnesses' view on the impact of the proceeds of war crimes? Do they have a view on that in terms of the anti-money laundering directive? I am not speaking specifically about the prospectus regulation. Do the witnesses feel that the proceeds of war crimes should fall under the anti-money laundering directive or do they think they already do?
Ms Helen Mahony:
I think they do. I am not an expert in legislation. People being paid back out of the proceeds of crime is a very serious issue. The other aspect of anti-money laundering is countering the financing of terrorism. If you look at what is considered terrorism under the countering the financing of terrorism legislation, Israel is doing all of what is defined as terrorism.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Mahony believes Israel would fall into that category legally, rather than from her own point of view.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is there anything Mr. Marmion would like to add?
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When you are the last person to contribute, most of your questions have already been answered. Is there anything else the witnesses would like to mention?
Ms Helen Mahony:
David Landy said at one of the first demonstrations outside the Central Bank that there is a direct line from the bank to the genocide in Gaza and to all of the crimes against humanity being committed against the Palestinian people. It is very important that we deal with that reality and take every action we can to end the sale of Israel bonds under the authorisation of the Central Bank.
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will finish with a comment of my own in that regard. I found it interesting, unusual and strange that this prospectus regulation has such almighty power that it goes above the Genocide Convention. I am not a legal expert, and that is why we had a legal expert in. Legal experts will have their opinions. However, it seems strange that a prospectus regulation has so much power above and beyond the Genocide Convention or indeed, any kind of national restrictions.
I will leave it there and we will finish up unless anybody would like to ask additional questions. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir. Gabhaim buíochas leis na haíonna as teacht os comhair an choiste. Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí agus Seanadóirí as páirt a ghlacadh.