Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I begin with a lesser point in the scale of what we are discussing. This is the third week in a row we have discussed the International Court of Justice, the highest court in global affairs, at which a case regarding genocide is being considered. On each occasion, the Tánaiste has been present to listen to one speaker before leaving the House. We do not operate a Westminster-style of politics. We have a multi-party system. In his contribution, the Tánaiste raised other contributions that were made last week and that involved fallacies. I would have liked him to dispute those fallacies but, once again, he left the Chamber. There is an element of cowardice in that, despite how much he protests against such a charge.

The ICJ has given its preliminary ruling. It has ruled by an overwhelming majority that it is plausible that a genocide is being inflicted upon the Palestinian people by the State of Israel. The enormity of that charge is absolutely incredible. We should all take a step back to consider the times in which we are living. The Tánaiste fails time and again to mention, despite how impassioned he is and how he disputes the rhetoric from the Opposition and suggests we are trying to divide the House, that there is one obligation contained within the genocide convention, which we have ratified, and it is the obligation to act to prevent genocide. That is the sole requirement of a signatory state when it considers that another state is complicit or potentially complicit in that most heinous of acts. We have an obligation to act. That requirement is often left out of the discussion.

In the past couple of days, it has been highlighted in international commentary and by some Members of this House that the ICJ did not order a ceasefire, as South Africa had strongly requested. The fact it did not do so is a manifestation of how purposefully constrained the court was. The International Court of Justice does not have the authority to call for ceasefires. It is a judicial body that settles legal disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the United Nations or specialised agencies. Ceasefires are typically negotiated through diplomatic channels or international organisations involved in conflict resolution. The court only has jurisdiction to consider issues in cases where countries have explicitly agreed to its authority over them.

In the current litigation, the court was able to consider the case only on the basis that both South Africa and Israel are state parties to the genocide convention. This meant South Africa had to frame its application through a genocide lens and the court had no power to go beyond the obligations arising out of that treaty. It also explains why the court could not, for example, order Hamas to release all the remaining Israeli hostages. Equally, the term "self-defence" was notably missing from the ruling precisely because of how contested that term may legally be in occupied territory zones. For these reasons, the ruling focused on addressing the horrendous conditions on the ground in Gaza.

The court did order Israel to take all measures in its power to prevent genocide and to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions faced by Palestinians in Gaza. One of the orders delivered by the court was for members of the Israeli Government to cease their genocidal rhetoric. It was an important statement by the court but it was broken within a day. At the weekend, 11 Ministers in the Israeli Government attended a conference calling for the Israeli settlement of the Gaza Strip. Detailed maps were displayed showing where settlements in Gaza would be established. Among the Israeli Ministers to attend were the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich. Ben-Gvir was appointed national security minister despite having convictions for incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organisation.

The Taoiseach was asked today in the Chamber by my party leader, Deputy Cairns, whether travel bans that may be extended to extremist Israeli settlers, which we have been advocating for in the past week, should include members of the Israeli Government. The Taoiseach completely and utterly ignored the question. I would love if somebody could answer that question for me as part of this conversation. If we are advocating travel bans for extremist settlers, will members of the Israeli Government, particularly those I just referenced and who broke the order of the ICJ on Saturday, be included in those travel bans? It is a very simple question.

The orders issued by the court fell within the genocide jurisdiction because the treaty defines "genocide" as not only direct killing but also "[d]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". An immediate ceasefire would go a long way toward Israel complying with those orders. As such, the calls for a ceasefire are well made, despite the court not having the power to order one. A big fear for all of us is that, eventually, we will see the US and the UK - I hope we do not join them - slapping themselves on the back because they finally got Netanyahu to stop slaughtering and massacring in Gaza. They will claim it as a victory but what will be left? I hope the Government does not join them in heralding some victory of statesmanship. That is not what it will be.

There is absolutely nothing stopping us, at this very moment in time, from initiating our own discrete case against Israel for the crime of genocide, which the ICJ might then decide to align to South Africa's case. I made this point in both my contributions last week and I reiterate it today. Why are we standing back and letting the sole responsibly for standing up for the rules-based order of the global system, which was developed following the horrendous and unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust, to fall to South Africa? The Irish Government can enact our own discrete case. We can do that. We do not have to wait six months to intervene. We do not have to wait out the process of the legal scrutiny of South Africa's 82-page document.

We can actually enact our own. There are two very real places where can do this. Our histories present a legitimacy and a moral position to hold states accountable for atrocities they commit against another. South Africa built its case around the obvious genocidal rhetoric used by Israeli Government officials. Our expertise is different. I will say it again; the use of large-scale munitions in an urban environment is a treaty we brought together in 2022. Bombs of 2,000 lbs. are being dropped on Gaza several times a day, every single day. If that is not being complicit in genocidal intent, I do not know what is. We could make a case based on that ourselves. The court could then decide to align it with the South Africa case. It would ensure that more resources and time from the court were allocated to the scrutiny. It would not be solely based around South Africa's case. Alternatively, we could act in accordance with our history of enforced famine that decimated our population in the 1840s and that was fuelled by a colonial oppressor.

The United Nations is warning of an immediate risk of famine for 400,00 people in Gaza. We could make our own discrete case that would fall within the genocide jurisdiction because the treaty defines genocide as not only direct killing, but also deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole, or in part. Hunger is being used in Gaza as a weapon of genocide. We can legally intervene here. We do not have to wait. We can engage with this.

I want to touch very briefly on the very serious allegations that were made against UNRWA in the last couple of days. Serious allegations require investigation but 17 states withdrawing funding from the population of Palestine and Gaza in particular, which is facing famine, is extraordinarily cruel. It belies the real intention. The ICJ delivered a ruling on Friday last that genocide was probably happening in Gaza. Within a couple days, allies of Israel such as the United States came out and were able to highlight that 12 UNRWA workers may have been complicit in the horrors of 7 October. They did so to remove from the headlines the fact that Israel had been found to be potentially committing genocide. The allegations are serious and require investigation but where exactly is the line? How come we did not see the same degree of multilateral expressions of horror when 130 journalists and their families in Gaza have been targeted? Nine UNRWA workers have been charged and 12 are suspected of being involved in these crimes but 125 UN workers have also been killed in Gaza. What about the universities that have been obliterated so that the Palestinian story will not be told for generations; literally being bombed? What about the fact that schools are being targeted and hospitals wiped from the map? Do we not get the same universal horror because of those atrocities?

See this speech in context