Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The cruel reality on the ground that is the occupation has been spoken about by many Deputies in the House. I do not really need to go over the dark, grim reality that is the everyday life of Palestinians. It has been going on for quite some time. It has been going on every day when we sit here. The recent events in Jenin have brought us back in here, but really this is something we should all be talking about consistently. What we have seen in Jenin is, in many ways, business as usual for the occupied state of Palestine. There is an Israeli NGO called Breaking the Silence, which is quite frequently targeted by the Israeli Government simply for speaking the truth. We know from Breaking the Silence that the sort of war crimes we have witnessed on our screens in Jenin are very common practice. As I have said, it is business as usual for the Israeli Defence Forces, whether they are in Jenin, Gaza or wherever. They have been very clear. It is unfortunate that these things must flare up in order for us to pay attention to them. From other Israeli NGOs, we see the challenging and horrendous reality. B'Tselem was one of the first to talk about apartheid. The idea has been backed up by Human Rights Watch and by Amnesty, that Israel is an apartheid state, in two different ways based on ethnicity or national group. It is very important that we look into those reports because they are founded on the assumption of Israel's control of all the territory, which we must realise, acknowledge and accept is basically de facto annexation. The Dáil voted to condemn de factoannexation. There is a programme for Government commitment to respond to annexation. It would seem that the Department and the Minister are resiling from the position the Dáil held that Israeli Government policies are de factoannexation. I call on the Department to draw a clear and bright line to say it exactly. When will the Department accept that what is happening on the ground is, in fact, annexation.

There is a challenge here. We seem to be at sea and we seem to be utterly behind the reality and the facts on the ground. Israeli journalist, Amir Tibon, wrote in Haaretzrecently of the "one-state reality in light of Israel's settlement construction" The one-state reality was highlighted by Ban Ki-moon. The one-state reality was also highlighted by the leading establishment journal on diplomacy, Foreign Affairs. When leading academics - who are very much part of the international community's establishment - are calling the reality on the ground a one-state reality, then really we must ask ourselves why we are still talking about two states. How did we get to a one-state solution? It is because of that annexation and the relentless settlement building that we condemn in our words but not in our deeds, and then do very little to respond to it. This one-state reality begs numerous questions. When one considers Government policy, we must ask if we are stuck in the past. We have referred to the stock answer from the Minister in relation to questions on recognition as being "Sure we will do it when the time is right". This one-state reality, this settlement construction, and this hollowing out of Palestinian territory like a doughnut, and which has just disappeared, means we may have missed that right time. We waited so long for just the right moment that it went right by us. The reality is that there will be no two-state solution.

There is a programme for Government commitment on annexation. If there is a one-state reality that has only happened because annexation has happened and because we have allowed it to happen. If we are still talking about a two-state solution, and if we have geared our minds in that way, are we dealing with the reality and the facts on the ground? If we are not dealing with the facts on the ground as they stand, then perhaps our foreign policy is dangerous, out of touch and will not actually achieve anything meaningful.

If we want to see two states and really want to put our money where our mouth is then we need to start acting that way. We need to start by saying that there are two states involved. We need to recognise both of those states, not just one, because we believe in two states. We also need to respond to the annexation, as we promised to do in the programme for Government.

One state can only happen as a result of the annexation that is the ongoing war crimes, the dispossession and the settlement building. We have made a commitment to respond to annexation and so far we are doing very little. One of the things we need to do is fulfil our responsibilities under international law and this is where the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023 and the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 come in. There is clear legal advice that we can do this. There is a strong legal position that we can unilaterally act in relation to the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. There may be Attorney General advice. I am aware that was published and critiqued quite widely. The reality is we need to send a strong message and we need to pass this Bill and if there are European Union laws that may get in the way, let us test them. As I stated previously, legal opinion only becomes legal fact in front of a judge. Let us pass this Bill and get it in front of a judge. The reality is that passing this Bill in and of itself would be an act of solidarity. It will be a clear message to the Israeli state that international law matters. It will be a clear message to all states that international law matters because where we see other invasions it is because people know that international law is not worth the paper it is written on and they know there will be no consequences because all they have to do is look at Israel. If we want a secure globe we need to make international law real. By failing to live up to our obligations we are undermining international law and, therefore, annexations and occupations in places such as Western Sahara and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia can continue because people know there will not be any consequences. We need to make international law real and to do that, we must live up to our responsibilities under international law.

It is frustrating for me to come in here and say all this again. I am sure many Deputies here have come in and said the same things, and again and again. It is because of the intransigence and the refusal to engage with any action beyond a verbal condemnation which is not worth anything that we find ourselves here, but how frustrating and disheartening is it for the Palestinians who are stuck in that occupation who are still being ground under the millstone of occupation? We need to remember that.

The daily-lived reality for Palestinians is probably so harsh many of us in here would struggle to live it for a week or two. This is their daily reality that they cannot escape. Partly, they cannot escape it because we are not helping give them an escape route. As I say, we need to stand up for international law.

What we are witnessing is a deliberate intention by the Israeli Government to destroy the Palestinian national group inflicting on them a way of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in the West Bank and in Gaza. This is utterly horrific. If we cannot live up to our responsibilities in international law in this regard how are we expecting any sense of global peace or global justice to survive?

As I say, there are commitments in the programme for Government. There are clear direct actions that can be taken - they have been outlined by numerous Deputies here - but ultimately it comes down to the fact that we need more than words. We need actions. We need actions as soon as possible because, as I say, the reality on the ground is that there may not be a Palestine left to support if we do not do something soon.

See this speech in context