Paul Murphy criticises UN Resolution 2803 and 'Trump Peace Plan'

Two days ago the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, a resolution endorsing the so-called Trump Peace Plan, a peace plan that disgracefully was welcomed by the Irish Government. We'll probably hear it welcomed again today. It makes the saying from Tacitus, they made a desert and call it peace, the most appropriate it has ever been. Because after two years of genocide, after killing at least 66,000 people, over 20,000 children, after imposing famine, after mowing people down while queuing for food, while after destroying the majority of the buildings, the hospitals, the schools, the universities, the homes in Gaza, now a peace is declared. But it's no peace at all. It's a continued colonial carve-up that is remarkable only for how naked that it is. The UN Resolution explicitly endorses the so-called Board of Peace as a, quote, transitional administration. This is a board to be chaired by Donald Trump. The only other member that we know who's going to be on it is Tony Blair, a war criminal, but presumably he will be joined by a series of other war criminals. And these people are to be imposed, without vote, without any consultation with the Palestinian people, imposed as new colonial viceroys on the people of Gaza. And what Trump plans to do there is set out in his own Trump plan. It was set out in that disgusting video about the Trump Riviera plan for Gaza. And then in slightly more polite terms, it's in the peace plan as Trump economic development plan and, quote, a special economic zone. There's going to be an army of occupation called the International Stabilisation Force, answerable not to the Palestinian people, answerable to the viceroys in the Board of Peace. What is absent from the UN Resolution, what is absent from the peace plan, is the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people's right to self-defence, their right to determine their own government and their right to self-determination. But the counterpart to the genocide that we saw openly unfolding for two years in Gaza, backed by Western imperialism, armed by Western imperialism, supported by Western imperialism, the US, Germany, Britain, the EU, the counterpart to that genocide is the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and in Jerusalem. This year, 30,000 settlement units have been approved by the Israeli government. And the kind of settlements, it doesn't capture what's happening. What is happening is Palestinian people are being violently removed from their land. Their land is being stolen from them today and taken by these illegal Israeli settlers. And then later on, the Israeli government authorises it, says we recognise it, and more Palestinian land is stolen. At the time of the Oslo Accords, there were 250,000 illegal Israeli settlers. When Francis Black first introduced this bill, there were 600,000. Today, there are 750,000. The latest is the so-called E1 settlement, which is about dividing the West Bank in two, further isolating Palestinians in Jerusalem. It's all about a logic of extermination of the Palestinian people. That's what the genocide is about, and that's what the settlements are about. And so this motion is an extremely modest ask, as Richard has outlined. It is in line with international law. The International Court of Justice is clear. States are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and to prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. No mention just of goods there. International law is very, very clear. It's in line with the strong recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly recommending, quote, progressing the bill and the importation of imports should be extended to include trade in services. It's in line with the promises made by Simon Harris and Micheál Martin over a year ago in the general election debate. And this motion is extremely minimal in its asks, just as the bill is. Our motion couldn't be simpler or clearer. There are two very, very simple asks. One is to say the Occupy Territories Bill will be implemented in full before Christmas, and the other is that services will be included. And we have a government that says it's not going to oppose this bill. So this will be the position of the doll after this debate. But the government, at the same breath, in the same breath as saying you're not going to oppose it, says we're not going to guarantee we're going to bring it in before Christmas and we're not decided yet if we're going to include services. It's a complete joke. You make a farce of this place to say that the doll can pass what it wants, a simple to-ask motion, you'll allow it to pass, but actually you don't give any commitment to actually do it. It is the height of cynicism by this government. And what's it about? It's cowardice. You don't want to have to have the prospect of TDs who support this government voting against you. You don't want to see people who supported this calls to include services in the Foreign Affairs Committee and then being pressured to vote against including services. Now, you don't want to come and tell your real position to the Irish people, which is that you don't want to include services. You want to water this down. That's the truth of your position. And it's a position of extreme moral cowardice and extreme cynicism. Just to address both the kind of good reasons that are announced and put forward by the government to explain why in reality they want to back away from this and then to address the real reason. So the good reason put forward Simon Harris on a number of occasions is that he wants to include services. Oh, he wants to include services, but he's afraid there might be legal issues in relation to it. There's no basis of that whatsoever. Firstly, there is the position of the International Court of Justice, upon which the whole change of government position was based on, which makes no distinction between goods and services. So that's the fundamental point in terms of international law. Secondly, now there's talk of Attorney General advice. I mean, this is the most blatant, kind of retroactive, getting of advice to suit a political position. The Attorney General already gave advice on this and made no mention of any problem in terms of services. So it is, you know, this is simply an attempt to find legal cover for a political retreat that the government wants to engage in. The second argument is that, oh God, sure, we don't want to be alone. Well, we're going so slow under public pressure that we are no longer alone. In Slovenia, they have already moved to ban imports by immediate government decision. In Belgium, there's a government announcement in relation to the occupied territories. Spain has moved in terms of importation of goods. Netherlands has moved as well. So we're certainly no longer alone. The other argument that's now advanced, which is absolutely treadbare, is the idea that this will be unimplementable. How could you possibly do this in terms of services? Well, the problem the government has there is you do it. You already do it in terms of services in Russia. In Russia, you have full sanctions ban on import and export of goods and services with Russia. It is done and IBEC accepted at the Foreign Affairs Committee that businesses had complied with that ban. So to get to the real reason, the real reason for the government's cowardice on this issue is pressure from US imperialism. Lobbying from the US Chamber of Commerce, pressure from the US Ambassador. It is very, very blatant that this is the case. There's an excellent new report from Uplift called the Neutrality Files, which explain this bit by bit by bit. I'll sum up, I'll give their sum up of this. The government's public justifications for not passing the Occupied Territory Bill, EU law cost, were a smokescreen for the real reason. Commitulation to economic pressure from the US activated on behalf of Israel. In October 2025, Reuters broke a story that the bill would be diluted as a direct result of corporate pressure. Later in October, speaking to the Dáil, Taoiseach and Miel Martin signalled that the bill would go ahead without services. That's the truth. In October 2024, US Ambassador to Ireland Clare Cronin warned of consequences for US companies in Ireland if the bill proceeded. Hours after that, then Taoiseach and Miel Martin announced the bill would be shelved for review. We know that back in 2019, Pascal Donoghue, former minister, told in a confidential call, quoting from leaked Israeli documents, the Irish minister confirmed that the Irish government will be using a procedure known as the money message to seek to block the progress of the draft Irish legislation. This is all this is. And the only thing that can force this government to act is massive public pressure from below. That's why I'll be on the street with lots of others tonight, 5.30, outside the Dáil. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.