Ireland’s Occupied Territories Bill. A Dangerous Moral Gamble?

Ireland’s proposed Occupied Territories Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at banning trade with Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has sparked heated debate both domestically and internationally.

While proponents of the Bill argue it is a moral stand against Israel’s actions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, its critics, who are numerous, see it as a hollow gesture of symbolism that risks severe economic and diplomatic repercussions, particularly with the United States.

Worse, the Bill’s singular focus on Israel fuels perceptions of Ireland as a nation veering toward functional anti-Semitism, undermining its global standing and ignoring the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

First introduced in 2018 by Independent Senator Frances Black as the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill, the legislation seeks to prohibit trade with Israeli settlements deemed illegal under international law.

The original Bill proposed fines of up to €250,000 and prison terms of up to five years for violations, a draconian measure by any standard for a nation with minimal trade (estimated at €500,000 to €1.5 million annually with these settlements).

In 2025, the government, now led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and Independents, proposed a revised version. What emerged is the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025, which excludes services and focuses solely on goods. This has led vocal critics like Sinn Féin’s Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire calling a “watering down” version of the original intent.

In a Dáil debate on February 5, 2025, Ó Laoghaire argued, “Ireland has the opportunity to lead the international community by passing the Occupied Territories Bill and it should do so immediately, without delay.”

Yet, this urgency overlooks the Bill’s limited economic impact. As Tánaiste Simon Harris noted on May 27, 2025, “It is a symbolic move,” acknowledging that Ireland’s trade with these settlements is negligible compared to its €1.2 billion in exports to Israel in 2018 or its €4 billion trade deficit in 2024.

Nevertheless, the Bill’s vociferous proponents seem intent on prioritising moral posturing over practical outcomes, ignoring the broader economic and diplomatic fallout.

This is particularly true with respect to Ireland’s economic relationship with the United States, which is a cornerstone of Irelands prosperity, with American companies like Apple, Google, and Pfizer all of whom employ thousands of workers within the Irish economy.

To say that the Occupied Territories Bill threatens to strain this relationship is somewhat of an understatement, particularly under the current US administration led by President Donald Trump, who has taken a staunchly pro-Israel stance.

The dangers of such ‘symbolic’ legislative gesture were highlighted in stark terms in July 2025, by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch when he warned on the X platform, that “If this legislation is implemented, America will have to seriously reconsider its deep and ongoing economic ties. We will always stand up to blatant antisemitism.” This was echoed by incoming US Ambassador to Ireland, Edward Walsh, who emphasized, “President Trump has been very clear that Ireland is an ally and there is no room for anti-Semitism across the world.”

The US concern is not abstract. Many American states have enacted anti-boycott laws targeting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which the Occupied Territories Bill is widely seen to align with.

Taoiseach Micheál Martin acknowledged this risk on July 4, 2025, stating, “We do have to factor in the presence of American legislation, the boycotting divestment legislation, which is already passed by numerous states in America, which would penalise any company that, from an American perspective, participates in boycotts.” These laws could penalise US companies operating in Ireland if they comply with the Bill, potentially leading to reduced investment or legal challenges.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, representing firms with significant economic clout, has also raised concerns. In discussions with Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke, the Chamber highlighted the risk to Ireland’s attractiveness as a hub for foreign direct investment. With US tariffs on Irish goods set to resume in July 2025, the timing of this legislation could not be worse, threatening to exacerbate tensions at a critical juncture.

Beyond economics, the Bill fuels a troubling perception of Ireland as functionally anti-Semitic, a charge that has gained traction in pro-Israel circles. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused Ireland of “encouraging antisemitism” based on its “delegitimisation and dehumanisation of Israel.”

The former Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, Dana Erlich, labelled the Bill a “discriminatory attempt to target Israel,” a sentiment shared by influential voices in the US. In a 2019 critique, prominent Boston lawyer Robert Popeo called the Bill “the most outrageous blatant piece of anti-Semitism that I’ve seen in the past few years.”

While supporters like Senator Black insist the Bill is about upholding international law and not targeting Israel specifically, its focus on Israeli settlements, while ignoring other global occupations, such as China’s in Tibet or Turkey’s in Cyprus inescapably raises questions about selective outrage.

As one Dáil member argued in 2019, “If our legislators are serious about using economic boycott to make a political point, they should broaden the debate to include all of those occupied territories.”

This singling out of Israel, coupled with Ireland’s broader actions, like recognizing Palestinian statehood and joining South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel has led critics to argue that the country’s policies veer dangerously close to anti-Semitism, regardless of intent.

Former Irish Ambassador to the US, Daniel Mulhall, countered this narrative, stating, “I do not see it as an expression of anti-Semitism. Its roots lie in a genuine sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.” Yet, this sympathy, shaped by Ireland’s own history of British colonialism, risks oversimplifying a complex conflict. The Dáil’s cross-party unity on Palestine often glosses over Israel’s security concerns, including Hamas’s rocket attacks and Iran’s regional influence.

By framing Israel solely as an oppressor, Ireland’s political discourse dismisses the existential threats it faces, contributing to a narrative that pro-Israel advocates see as unfairly one-sided.

 From a ‘pro-Israel perspective’, the Occupied Territories Bill ignores the realities of a nation surrounded by hostile actors. Israel’s settlements, while controversial, are often viewed by Israelis as a buffer against attacks from groups like Hamas, which has vowed to destroy the Jewish state. The Bill’s proponents rarely acknowledge the 2005 Gaza disengagement, where Israel withdrew settlements only to face increased rocket fire, or the 2000 Camp David offer, where a two-state solution was rejected by Palestinian leadership. By focusing solely on Israel’s actions, the Bill dismisses the broader context of a conflict where both sides have made missteps.

Moreover, the Bill’s alignment with the BDS movement, which many Israelis and their supporters view as seeking to delegitimise Israel’s existence, exacerbates tensions. In a May 2025 Dáil debate, one deputy lamented, “We are expected to be grateful now to see an Occupied Territories Bill seven years after it was initially introduced and half the Bill that it was. It is a shameful disgrace.” This criticism, while aimed at the government’s diluted version, underscores the Bill’s symbolic intent to signal Ireland’s moral superiority rather than engage with the conflict’s nuances.

 The Bill’s supporters argue it could inspire other nations, citing Ireland’s 1987 ban on South African goods as a precedent. Yet, unlike apartheid South Africa, Israel is a democracy with a complex security environment.

The comparison also ignores the economic fallout Ireland could face today, given its reliance on US investment.

It may be said then, rather justifiably, that Ireland’s Occupied Territories Bill, while cloaked in moral righteousness, is not only misguided, but also apparently oblivious to the threat it poses to its economic lifeline with the US.

While Ireland’s Tánaiste Simon Harris has called for a “realistic assessment” of the Bill’s impact, almost every word and action of his since he spoke to those words has merely served to ensure that he is backing Ireland into a very dangerous economic corner indeed.