Richard Boyd Barrett: Bill's Sanctions Are Minimal

Yeah, well obviously it's incredibly disappointing that all of our amendments have been ruled out of order on the grounds that, again, for anybody who is watching, that they're beyond the scope of the Bill. And as I said before, people are, and I suspect the government know this and are exploiting it, labouring under the illusion that the government are in favour of significant sanctions against the State of Israel for the crimes they're committing. The genocide of the last three years, the apartheid, the ongoing ethnic cleansing, the occupation, and that that's what's actually happening with this Bill. I suspect the government are quite happy with a sort of creative ambiguity in the minds of the public about what's happening, thinking that the government have ticked the box of imposing sanctions. But the fact that these amendments which I put forward are ruled out of order speaks to just how minimal the objectives of this Bill are because of what our amendments seek to do is end all imports to the entire State of Israel, exports, all business dealings, all financial dealings, not just with the occupied territories but with the State of Israel itself, because the State of Israel is guilty of genocide, is perpetuating an apartheid, is maintained on the basis of an apartheid system, is maintained on the basis of constant campaign, ongoing campaign, since it came into existence, and indeed before that, of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, and it has never stopped. It's never stopped in its violations of the rights of Palestinians, denial of the right of millions of Palestinians to return to their homes from which they were expelled in 1948, languished in refugee camps, in countries around occupied Palestine ever since, millions of people, and the government isn't proposing any sanctions against those, and they are considered to be beyond the scope of the Bill. We can't even discuss those amendments because the scope of the Bill is so limited that it's only dealing with the import of a small number of goods from a small area of occupied Palestine. That's a tragedy, not least because of course the ability, even in terms of the objective of this Bill itself, if we just say that the objective of the Bill is only to put pressure on Israel over what are called the illegal settlements in the areas taken over in 1967, the only reason they can sustain that is because of the Israeli state allowing them to, providing them with the troops and the military and the economic and support and the legal support, they wouldn't be able to maintain those settlements for one single solitary second without the orchestration of the Israeli state. So the idea that we're just going to penalise the settlers and the settlements but separate that out from the state that is enabling those settlements, that is encouraging those settlements, that's maintaining those settlements, and that of course is violently shooting down, murdering, beating down, oppressing Palestinian people who resist those settlements, it's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous proposition, frankly, and it just needs to be highlighted. And I think we are, in our dereliction, I think the whole of the European Union is shockingly in dereliction of their obligations under international law, particularly under the Genocide Convention, I think we are, I've said it repeatedly so there's not much point in going over too much here, but as far as I'm concerned, our legal obligations under the Genocide Convention trump anything. And if they don't, what's the point, what was the point of the Genocide Convention if it wasn't to stop genocide, the sort of genocidal horrors that prompted it, that convention, to be put in place in the first place after the Nazi Holocaust, that was the whole point. Never again, we're never ever going to let this happen again and states have an obligation to do everything to prevent genocide. Not to punish it after the fact, not to spend years debating it, not to wait for a qualified majority votes or whatever the hell it is, to stop genocide, prevent it from happening. But we haven't, we haven't failed, like incredible fail. And one question I do have is, the government, whenever these points were made, the government said we can't act unilaterally, we can't, we're tied in with European treaties, therefore we can't act unilaterally. Yet strangely we find, even on the most pathetically minimal basis that the government is proposing in the bill that they are putting forward, to impose unilateral sanctions. So it seems we can impose unilateral sanctions. We're just proposing to do the most minimal unilateral sanctions. But if we can propose minimal unilateral sanctions, why can't we propose maximum unilateral sanctions? And why couldn't we say to Europe, what we're doing in imposing comprehensive boycott, divestment and sanctions on the state of Israel is discharging what we believe to be our legal obligations under international law. Even discharging our obligations under the human rights requirements of the EU-Israel trade agreement. Because like, to me, it's anybody who continues to trade with this regime or to give it favoured trade status is in dereliction of those conditions, those human rights conditions. So it's Europe who's in dereliction. In fact I seriously ask the question, I'm not saying this as a rhetorical point, why aren't we taking Europe to court? Why aren't we launching a case against the European Union for dereliction of its own laws and for dereliction of its obligations under the Genocide Convention instead of worrying that they might take us to court? We should welcome a day in court with these people, so we'll be taken to court. Good, let them take us to court. Let them get up and say, oh, yeah, you're completely acting illegally, imposing sanctions on a regime that's committing genocide or that's guilty of apartheid. Let's fight that out in court, because I don't think they'd have a very strong case, quite honestly, to take us to court for imposing sanctions on Israel for genocide, for apartheid, for ethnic cleansing, for war crimes, crimes against humanity. They're all self-evidently crimes, violations of international law. So I'll leave it at that, but it's an awful pity, and at least the public have the right to know just how minimal the efforts are here to sanction a state that, as we speak, continues its genocidal horror against the Palestinian people. Deputy O'Leary. I'm Alex. I speak to primarily the amendment that has ruled out of order in my name and Deputy Bennett's name. I suppose we mostly talk about goods and services, but there is also raw materials, extraction of natural resources. Now, typically, that would probably feature as a good, but maybe not always. And I suppose the issue is in relation to are there types of extraction that might not be captured by this? I'm hoping you're going to tell me that we're confident that every form of extraction of natural resources is captured, but I would like some reassurance. I just want to also ask you, look, I suppose the amendment that I have, again, relates to the debate partially around goods, services, and what's included and what's not included. I just do want to ask you again, just if you can clarify, for what reason is it that you believe the Spanish government haven't been subject to infringement proceedings? How have they managed to avoid, in whatever limited way, they have interfered with the trade of services using the public policy exemption? How is it they haven't been subject to infringement proceedings? Tara. Thank you, Deputy. So again, look, to this section, we've obviously taken the decision that we will bring forward legislation specific to goods. I know you don't like to hear it or you don't accept it, Deputy, but it is a fact that Ireland has been to the fore at a European level in advocating for stronger action, and you can sit here and suggest that we don't want to do it. I'm not going to sit here and advocate if I don't want a result out of that, and I certainly won't sit at a European Foreign Affairs Committee for every single committee that I have and advocate it on behalf of Palestinian people, advocate it for better humanitarian support, better access to humanitarian support for people on the ground now, advocating for stronger sanctions, advocating for a stronger response at a European level. You don't do that if you don't want a result out of it. I don't, and I don't think anybody in government has taken that approach either. We have moved, again, we went through, obviously, on Tuesday, the legal reasons as to why we are now moving on goods and why we hadn't before, but obviously we've discussed that at length. In terms of the, I suppose, the materials, I'm assured that any material that would come out of the ground that would be mine, that would be a good, that is covered under this, but obviously anything that is a service is not, but any type of material that comes from the occupied Palestinian territories is covered under this legislation. In terms of Spain, again, this is something that has been introduced relatively newly. They have different legal structures. Whether or not anything will happen or come from it, I don't know. It hasn't to date, but at the moment, obviously, they are applying theirs in a limited way specific to adverts, as I'm aware, that are in Spanish language, but beyond that, obviously, it's very much for the Commission if they were to decide to move on things. We've made a very clear decision that services are not included, but that is because I am advocating at a European level to include services, and that would include advertisement of services. It would include all types of services, and it would include the EU as a whole responding in that regard. The question is, sorry, briefly, Barrett first, then I'll come to you, Deputy Leader. Just to be clear, Minister, you are advocating for something that for a very, very long time people campaigned for and the government didn't do anything about, but eventually, the government started to advocate for the suspension of the EU-Israel trade agreement. Now, just to be absolutely clear, that is not proposing an end to trade with Israel. It's about not giving them favoured trade status, which is just unbelievable that they have favoured trade status. Just again, for people to understand this, that Israel is effectively an associate member of the European Union for the purposes of trade, which is beyond belief, given what it's doing and what it's been doing for so long. What you're advocating for is that they shouldn't get favoured trade status, but just to be clear, what almost every civil society organisation in Palestine and most of the people who are on the streets across the world are advocating for is going, not only the suspension of that agreement, but also for a full boycott, divestment and sanctions from the state of Israel. Just to be clear. And I don't think that's the government position. In my opinion, it should be. And the reason it should be is because we are, as well as moral imperatives for the crimes that are being committed against the Palestinian people, because of the Genocide Convention. I believe that puts a legal obligation on us to do everything in our power. I won't go through the legal case law, I'd say your officials and yourself are fully aware of it. It was spelled out very, very clearly in the Bosnia-Herzegovina case about the requirement of states to do all in their power to prevent the commission of genocide. To my mind, if you continue with, what is it we're doing? Three billion worth of trade with Israel, just to scan for the record, just so we know. Three to four billion worth of trade. This bill is going to capture maybe 200,000 worth of trade. So we are going to continue to trade with this state to the tune of billions. It's second biggest trading partner in the European Union. Now, for a government that's saying we're leading, that's not great, is it? Second biggest trading partner in the European Union. People need to know that. The minister is saying we're leading, but we're not advocating for BDS, we should be. I still don't see why we couldn't act unilaterally and then just deal with the arguments that might come up against us for doing so, because I think the arguments that would come up against us, legal or otherwise, would not be very strong.