The Central Bank of Ireland and Gaza

Ireland’s fixation on the Gaza conflict, and its unrelentingly critical posture toward Israel, has reached a point of near obsession in its political sphere.

The recent Dáil Éireann debate on June 11, 2025, regarding the Central Bank of Ireland’s role in facilitating the sale of Israel Bonds, is a case study in this skewed focus. The motion, initiated on the day by Deputy Cian O’Callaghan of the Social Democrats, further exemplifies how Ireland’s political class is increasingly out of step with its major EU partners and the United States through its adoption of a stance that is not only one-sided but also risks undermining its international credibility and economic interests.

The Dáil debate specifically centred on a motion to halt the Central Bank of Ireland’s (CBI) facilitation of Israel Bonds, which Deputy O’Callaghan and others claimed were funding Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

The motion accused Israel of genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, drawing on reports from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. It argued that Ireland, as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, has a legal and moral obligation to stop the CBI from approving Israel Bonds’ prospectuses, which are marketed as supporting Israel’s war effort.

The debate was emotionally charged, with the majority of deputies invoking harrowing images of Palestinian suffering including Hamas health ministry reports of an alleged 54,500 deaths in Gaza since October 2023. The debate further alleged that 65% of these deaths were women and children.

The government response, led by Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe, countered with an amendment emphasising Ireland’s condemnation of Israel’s actions, its humanitarian aid to Palestinians (€88 million since January 2023), and its diplomatic efforts, such as supporting a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

Donohoe argued that the CBI’s role is limited to assessing prospectuses under EU law, not endorsing or selling bonds, and that unilateral action would violate EU obligations and risk legal challenges. The amendment carried, but the debate revealed a deep divide.

While the opposition parties demanded immediate action, the government prioritised legal and diplomatic channels.

As noted above, Ireland’s stance on Israel, as showcased in this debate, places it at odds with major EU member states and the United States. While Ireland has positioned itself as a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights, its rhetoric and proposed actions, such as banning Israel Bonds or enacting restrictive financial measures, diverge sharply from the more balanced approaches of countries like Germany, France, and the UK. These nations, while critical of certain Israeli policies, maintain robust diplomatic and economic ties with Israel, recognizing its strategic importance and right to self-defence.

Germany, for instance, has consistently supported Israel’s security while advocating for humanitarian aid and a two-state solution. In 2024, Germany provided €1.3 billion in development aid to Palestinians but refrained from unilateral sanctions or inflammatory rhetoric accusing Israel of genocide. France, similarly, has condemned Israeli settlement expansion but maintains strong trade relations, with bilateral trade reaching €3.2 billion in 2023. The UK, even under its new Labour government, has taken a measured approach, sanctioning specific Israeli individuals involved in settler violence (as noted in the Dáil debate) but avoiding broad economic measures that could destabilise relations.

The United States, Israel’s closest ally, provides $3.8 billion annually in military aid and has consistently vetoed UN Security Council resolutions deemed overly critical of Israel. While the U.S. has expressed concern over civilian casualties in Gaza, it emphasises Israel’s perfectly reasonable right to counter Hamas, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and others.

There is also a growing sense that while Ireland has condemned Hamas’s actions on October 7, 2023, it also manages to maintain a stance that is disproportionately hostile to the Israel.

Ireland’s focus on Israel Bonds is particularly telling. No other EU country has made a comparable push to halt financial dealings with Israel at the national level. The CBI’s role, inherited post-Brexit, is a technical one under the EU Prospectus Regulation, requiring approval of bond prospectuses for completeness, not endorsement.

Other EU states, such as the Netherlands or Luxembourg, which host significant financial sectors, have not singled out Israel Bonds for scrutiny. Ireland’s attempt to legislate against this process risks isolating it within the EU, where consensus-driven sanctions (e.g., against Russia) are preferred over unilateral actions.

Another notable feature of the recent Dáil debate was just how it much it leaned on accusations of genocide, citing the ICJ’s January 2024 finding of “plausible rights” to protection from genocide in Gaza and a July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation illegal.

These claims, which were echoed by deputies like Gary Gannon and Jennifer Whitmore, are inflammatory and oversimplify a complex conflict. They also completely ignore the legal reality that the ICJ’s rulings are preliminary and non-binding in the case of the advisory opinion. Although often cited as if it as, the court has not in fact concluded that genocide is occurring.

Similarly, while the International Criminal Court (ICC) has sought arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, these are for specific alleged war crimes, not genocide. This is a distinction that has been all but lost in Ireland’s parliamentary rhetoric.

This one-sided narrative also ignores the broader Middle Eastern context. Iran, a major backer of Hamas and Hezbollah, has fuelled regional instability, yet the Dáil seldom addresses this.

Syria’s civil war, which killed over 500,000 people, or Yemen’s ongoing conflict, with 150,000 deaths, also receive only scant attention compared to Gaza. There is a legitimate sense that Ireland political class is very selective in its outrage.

It also must be said that Ireland’s push to ban Israel Bonds and enact restrictive measures, as proposed in the Dáil, carries significant risks.

The government’s countermotion correctly noted that such actions could breach EU law, specifically Articles 63 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which govern the free movement of capital and sanctions. Legal advice from the Attorney General, referenced by Donohoe, underscores that unilateral measures would expose Ireland to legal challenges, potentially undermining its reputation as a stable financial hub. Ireland’s economy, heavily reliant on foreign investment and EU membership, cannot afford to flout regulations for symbolic gestures.

While Ireland’s heart may be in the right place, given its history of oppression and famine, it remans true to say that such empathy must be tempered with realism.

The Dáil’s focus on Israel Bonds, while emotionally compelling, is a distraction from more effective measures. Ireland could strengthen its advocacy within the EU for targeted sanctions, such as those on settler violence, which the UK has implemented. It could push harder for humanitarian access and a ceasefire, as Donohoe’s countermotion emphasized, rather than symbolic gestures unlikely to survive legal scrutiny.

Israel is not without fault. Its settlement expansion and blockade policies exacerbate Palestinian suffering, and the civilian toll in Gaza is indefensible. But Ireland’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s security concerns undermines its moral authority.

Ireland’s political obsession with Gaza, as evidenced by the June 11, 2025, Dáil debate, reflects a genuine desire to address human suffering but is marred by a one-sided narrative and impractical proposals.

By fixating on Israel Bonds and accusing Israel of genocide without equal scrutiny of Hamas, Ireland alienates itself from major EU states and the U.S. in this regard, the government’s countermotion, emphasising diplomacy and legal constraints, offers a more pragmatic path, even if lacks the emotional resonance of the opposition’s rhetoric.

Ireland must channel its passion into effective, collective action within the EU and UN, rather than unilateral measures that risk economic and diplomatic isolation. Only then can it honour its humanitarian legacy without sacrificing its global standing.