Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am trying to be helpful in what I say and not in any way to be combative or to disagree with the point the Senator makes. However, it is useful for me to lay out what the Irish Government is genuinely trying to do to move the European obstacles out of the way and achieve consensus, but also shift the dial regarding the perception of the conflict in certain member states. Two member states backed our proposal in April of last year and the number is now 17. Do I believe the proposal is 1% of what is enough? Absolutely not. I recognise that. It is nowhere near what is required to save enough lives or stop the conflict quickly enough. It is but one of many tools and processes open to us. Senator Stephenson listed a number of them and I am going to respond to them in due course, so she should not worry in that regard.

The proposal gives us an opportunity and a responsibility. Representatives in the European Parliament, of all parties and groups and of none, have been relatively united on this. I was in the European Parliament with the Slovenian Prime Minister for last week’s debate on Gaza. It was toxic, to be quite frank. Some of the rhetoric from members of my own political family, the European People’s Party, and equally from the far right and various other groups, both centre and centre left, was just so alien to what we are discussing. In the debate we are having here in Ireland, we will get frustrated with one another and the Government will be castigated by protesters in opposition. I hear that and I am not countering it. I am not going to dismiss it for one instant, but it is important to set out the context of this debate.

Senator Cosgrove referred to the debate in the United States. We know that is alien. Senator Black, who spends an awful lot of time in the United States, knows that what is being discussed there is something we would not recognise. At European level, and previously at British level, the debate was one we would not have recognised, but it is shifting. I say that to give an indication of what should and can be achieved and what we are genuinely trying to achieve.

Senator Higgins referred to the legislation on the occupied territories that will soon go to the foreign affairs committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. It is not there yet. Let us wait until we get there. The discussions between Senator Black and the Tánaiste are ongoing to ensure we get something robust that best represents the original legislation and that is within the confines of international law.

The Slovenian foreign minister has stated Slovenia is going to replicate whatever we pass. She said that to me on the floor of the European Council. While this is great, Slovenia is but one country and there are 25 more to go. We have seen indications from other member states. They have seen where moves have been made on recognition and are slowly coming around. There is an extremely important conference in New York organised by France and Saudi Arabia on maintaining the importance of the two-state solution. One of the main reasons Ireland, like Norway and Spain, officially recognised Palestine last year was not just the long-standing, righteous call from many in this House and outside. It was, at a very perilous time, about maintaining our true belief in the future of a two-state solution and providing the pathway.

There are issues concerning the role of Hamas and governance that other EU member states have been referring to for many months, but these are starting to be addressed. I had a conversation on this with the Palestinian ambassador to Ireland last week and, indeed, her EU counterpart this week. We can get more states to recognise Palestine in the coming weeks. That is really important, not just for its symbolism but also for what it will mean in the wider debate on how we move on regarding the likes of the association agreement, trading practices, and getting other EU member states to adopt legislation of the kind that will be passed swiftly in these Houses once it is subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny.

Senator Black and I sat beside each other in the Seanad when she introduced the occupied territories Bill more than eight years ago. Senator Higgins was one seat behind me and my dear friend, Anthony Lawlor, was on the other side, in from where Senator Lynch is now. I spoke against Senator Black’s Bill at the time. She will remember the tone of the debate. I did not disagree with one iota of what she was trying to achieve, as we discussed on television not too long afterwards. There was someone on the panel who very much disagreed with us. However, I was wholeheartedly in agreement, as I am now, that if we are to pass anything, it must be fully in compliance with international and EU law. If we are to pass something, it must in the first instance be something we can stand over legally and, second, something that allows us to show the path to other member states and countries around the world.

South Africa got ahead of us regarding the work concerning the ICJ. We have been able to join that case. We have seen what the South Africans could do, and perhaps we can see what we can do. The legislation that comes out of this House, on its own, will not end the conflict overnight, as we all accept, but it is an important step. That is why, as someone who definitely took a different approach to the conflict in the Middle East than Senator Black, Senator Andrews and others – we would have had robust debates over the years – I find myself in my current position. I very much find myself in the same position as so many Members in the UK’s House of Commons, who stood up a couple of weeks ago and said that, traditionally, they would have absolutely believed in the right of Israel to exist first and foremost and, indeed, its right to defend itself but that what it has done over the past 23 months or thereabouts has really made people like them completely change their opinions and open their eyes to the level of deprivation we are seeing among an oppressed people. I am ashamed of myself – I genuinely and sincerely mean that – but still maintain my belief that whatever we agree on has to be binding and legally enforceable. That will still guide me but it does not take away for one instant from the level of commitment, compassion and empathy of all Members of this House.

There is an awful lot more I could inform this House about in relation to the ICJ action and so much else. It is all good stuff that the Members all probably heard before and that has probably been aired in debates. Regardless of people’s personal opinions and emotions, and appreciating that this debate is emotive for many, I completely respect the bona fides of those who introduced the legislation in the Dáil this week, the desire to achieve something and to feel, given the mind-blowing level of frustration, that we are actually contributing in some way to alleviating the suffering and deprivation we see on our screens. On the other side, we need to ensure things are legally binding and, if they are not, that we determine how to change the process to make them so.