Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----for concrete and reasonable proposals.

I will now discuss the reasons this is a good Bill. We are giving Members the space to examine the reasonable proposals but I believe that on examination they will see their concerns do not stand up. Let us also be clear that in acceding to the request for time and space, it is not a neutral or in-between position to be where we are now. As was made clear in the letter in the newspaper from many Israeli citizens, we are effectively enabling and economically sustaining settlements while we continue to trade with them. That is not a neutral position, but a position of support for things that we should not be supporting.

It is not just the Palestinians who are losing ground. The international community is losing ground. We are losing ground in East Jerusalem. In this very month, January 2018, an order was made for 1,000 new settlement homes. We are losing ground in terms of diplomatic credibility and the space for dealing with the issue seriously as we should through international law. It will not be a matter of relationship building and chatting to people in the room. To be brave diplomatically means one must show that one deals seriously with the issue. If the Minister wishes to makes progress, it will not come by waiting for a magical consensus to arise. It will only come through leadership. Ireland has given service to its European colleagues by showing leadership on the recognition of the PLO. In fairness to the Tánaiste, he was one of the first who came out in condemning the proposal to locate the embassy in East Jerusalem. In the programme for Government, there is a commitment to the recognition of the state of Palestine. That is also overdue.

We cannot wait for consensus or joining in. If the Tánaiste wants to be in a different position when he returns to the Seanad for a vote on this Bill in July, it will take leadership and not simply conversation.

I hope the Bill will be passed in July. It is not a boycott Bill, nonetheless, the boycott, which we invented, is an effective and legitimate form of individual and collective protest in unjust situations. This Bill relates only to those goods produced on land which is illegally occupied, which is not Israeli land.

I wish to address trade, an area which is of great interest to me. This Bill does not impact on or in any way breach international trade law. In terms of the World Trade Organisation, we have opinions from Michael Lynn, SC, and Professor James Crawford, senior counsel in the UK and other senior counsel which state that GATT articles which address the exclusion of goods from particular areas are explicitly clear that the provisions which they have given which have been incorporated into WTO rules only apply to recognised territory. A state taking action in occupied territory that is not internationally recognised is not subject to those protections. Moreover the EU free trade agreement explicitly excludes goods from settlements. It is very clear the EU has stated that it has not a free trade agreement which encompasses goods from occupied territories. They are excluded from trade deals. There are precedents in other free trade agreements which have excluded other occupied territories from the provision of the free trade agreement.

Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is very clear on the exceptions to the collective rules of trade, where they can be justified on grounds of public morality, public policy and public security and the protection of health and life of humans. With great respect to my colleague, Senator O'Reilly, this is not a breach, it is a very clear exception. There is a procedure for activating this exception. For example, they have used this exception in the past in Germany. It has been used by many other countries. It is a standard practice. I do not believe there is anybody in the House who would not say that the actions taking place in occupied territories do not breach public morality, public policy or the protection of health and life of humans. I would be extremely confident that we do not have any concern in terms of international trade law, European trade law and WTO rules.

This Bill does not simply relate to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It relates to occupied territories. I realise that can be a wide definition. The question is where do we draw the line on what are occupied territories.We have taken the most conservative, clearest and strongest line in terms of where we do it. The International Court of Justice has a mandate from countries around the world to rule on international disputes and, ultimately, to define international law and we have set that as the bar. This affects the occupied territories in terms of Israel but it is also worth noting, however, that there are other areas such as Western Papua which has been under the control of Indonesia for many years. We know that many of the Pacific Islands states have been discussing taking cases through the International Court of Justice procedures to ensure that Western Papua would also be recognised as an occupied state, under which rules it would, again, fall within the bounds of our Bill. There are many other areas of occupation and control that can be discussed.

I would like to indicate that when the Bill goes to Committee Stage, which I hope will happen, we are willing to work with the Government and all parties to ensure that we have the best possible and clearest definition of occupied territory. Therefore, I look forward to the debate resuming and hope that we are looking at a landscape that is very different to today's because right now we are losing ground.