Last night this Government voted against supporting South Africa’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice at the earliest possible opportunity. Instead it amended the Social Democrats motion to say the Government will only consider supporting the case at some point in the future. We now know the preliminary ruling is due tomorrow. But even then the Government has said it will not act and that its decision will only be made after South Africa submits its substantive case. Am I right in thinking it could take six, nine or maybe 12 months for the Government to make up its mind?

People want to know what is going on here. The Tánaiste has not been slow to use the word “genocide” before. Less than two months after Russia invaded Ukraine, he accused it of genocide. He did this while he was Taoiseach. He made an assessment that there was a risk of genocide and demanded that Russia be held to account, and it was. The Irish Government worked with the international community to freeze bank accounts, impose trade sanctions and set travel bans. The sanctions against Russia were rightly agreed within weeks. What consequences has Israel suffered for its actions in Gaza? Can the Tánaiste name even one?

I listened to the Tánaiste speak earlier this week when he said Israel has to be held to account. In what way? By whom? Because every time the Social Democrats and others have suggested ways that the Government could hold Israel to account, he refuses to act. He will not indicate support for South Africa at the International Court of Justice, he will not refer a case to the International Criminal Court, he will not lobby for economic sanctions at EU level, he will not withdraw the diplomatic status of the Israeli ambassador and he will not pass the Occupied Territories Bill or the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill. I am asking the Tánaiste to please not use his time to explain to me what the ICJ is and how it works. I know that.

You do not.

I am asking that he signal his intention and start the preparatory work to intervene now because we all know that you do not signal your intent and walk into the ICJ tomorrow. There is a lot of work that goes on in advance of that. When bombs are being dropped indiscriminately in densely populated areas, a man-made famine and aid cannot get in and when 250 people are being killed every day there is no time to waste. This wait-and-see approach is not proportionate to the atrocity that is unfolding in front of our eyes. It is not reflective of the strong feeling around the country and it is not even representative of the Tánaiste’s own words on this issue.

I have welcomed this Government’s and the Tánaiste’s strong words of condemnation against Israel’s massacre but what everyone wants to know is will he match those words with actions, not at some undefined time in the future but now.

I have three questions. Does the Tánaiste believe that a genocide, or risk of genocide, is occurring in Gaza? Can he explain his divergent approach to Russian and Israeli war crimes? How is this Government going to hold Israel to account?

First, we did not decide last night not to join the South African case. That is misinformation and it is disingenuous. That spin is wrong.

I said at the earliest opportunity.

We have been very consistent in calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We were one of the first European Union countries to come out and call, and rightly, for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and for unimpeded aid to go into Gaza, which are the two most urgent things that have to happen. Third is the release of all hostages that are being held by Hamas and then to get into a political peace track.

The Deputy asked a question and then tried to tell me how to answer it. I do not propose to go down that line because I do think there is a fundamental disingenuous approach being adopted by the Opposition in respect of this case and this issue. First, the Deputy asked how is Israel held to account. In the courts. We are already before the International Court of Justice. Ireland has already submitted a legal submission in respect of Israeli occupation of the occupied territories, the West Bank and so on. The Attorney General will be participating in a full hearing in February. I oversaw the submission of a very robust legal case that we had made to the court in respect of the breaches of international humanitarian law that we believe has happened in the occupied territories. So Ireland is active before the courts where accountability matters. Likewise, we have supported the international criminal court in respect of the case that Palestine has taken against that court and we have followed it up with significant funding which is what the prosecutor wanted. We gave an additional €3 million to the court to enable the court to have the resources to deal with that case and other cases it is dealing with. That case is active and it is prosecuting all actions from 7 October until now.

In respect of South Africa, no country has joined -----

I said signal intent. Read the motion.

This idea that we have not joined is wrong. It is false presentation. It is creating a false-----

It is also not what is in the motion.

Through the Chair -----

Please.

It is creating false perceptions.

Outside, people looking in at Ireland say that Ireland is pro-Palestinian and pro a Palestinian state. That is what people see about Ireland. We are having an internal debate here. Certain parties seem to be trying to say that they are more virtuous than the parties over here in terms of how much they care about the cause of Palestine.

Exactly.

It is very cynical. It seems to be more about leveraging electoral and political advantage for themselves than about an objective and rational assessment of how we proceed. In terms of intervention, the point is that we cannot intervene until we know the basis of the case. Our approach to this is exactly the same as our approach to Ukraine. Ukraine was refuting Russian allegations, which were the basis for its invasion, that it had committed genocide in the Donetsk and other regions. Ukraine refuted that. Ireland joined months later, by the way, following the preliminary hearings at the court.

Speaking down the clock and talking about how I am apparently being disingenuous really says it all. I literally said at the beginning that the Government voted down our motion, which called on it to intervene "at the earliest possible opportunity". I literally highlighted, in my speech just before the Tánaiste spoke, that we want the work to start now. We do not signal our intent and walk into the ICJ tomorrow. There is preparatory work that needs to take place. We are calling on the Government to do that now - to intervene "at the earliest possible opportunity". The Government amended our motion to say that it might intervene at some undescriptive time in the future. I was not disingenuous. Word for word, that is what our motion said. The Government amended it.

When I ask the Tánaiste about the Government's actions, the only thing he can point to is securing travel bans for violent settlers. I want to give people an idea of how relatively inconsequential that is. Given that America, which is one of Israel's biggest allies, introduced those bans at the start of December, it is hardly a legitimate action in the grand scheme of this entire situation. It is clear the Tánaiste will not answer the questions I asked. I will go back to one thing, and I ask him to respond to this. He said, without hesitation and without equivocation, that there was a genocide happening in Ukraine. Will he use that same language to describe what is happening in Gaza?

Going back to the court case, states that consider they have a legal basis for intervention in the ICJ must seek the court's permission to intervene. This is typically done in all cases. Nothing new is happening here. It is typically done after the court has made any provisional measures orders. The court is now saying it will deliver that tomorrow. What are the provisional measures South Africa has sought? It has sought an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian access, both of which we agree with. We agree with everything South Africa has sought from the court in terms of provisional measures. We have been seeking these in advance. Then South Africa has to file a memorial, which is the substantive case. We anticipate it will share that with us. That will provide us with the basis to legally intervene. The court is not a political chamber. It is not a debating chamber. It is about arguments that speak to the convention and enable us to actually successfully prosecute a case at the convention. That is the distinction we are making and that is exactly what we did. Ireland intervened in Ukraine's refutation of Russia's allegation of genocide against Ukraine five months after the provisional hearing was provided. I am extremely concerned about what is going on. I have already called out announcements by two Israeli government ministers that I believed were genocidal in their content in terms of calling for displacement of Palestinians and the elimination of Palestinians from Gaza.

Will the Tánaiste answer the question?

I just answered it.