With a general election coming up, the Government is very keen that the public – or at least that section of the public that feels very strong sentiment in favour of the Palestinian cause – should know that it is looking for ways to enact the so-called “Occupied Territories Bill”.
And wouldn’t you know, in one of the happiest instances of good timing known to man, the Government appears to have found some good news on that front.
First, an explanation of the bill: The Occupied Territories Bill would essentially prohibit trade between Ireland and those parts of Israel which the Irish Government alleges to be “occupied territory” – this would include Israeli settlements in the west bank and in the Golan Heights. The produce in question is mostly agricultural, and made up of dates (the fruit) and other foodstuffs. Proponents of the bill estimate that it would prohibit about €1m worth of annual and existing trade between Ireland and Israel, which is a fraction of a fraction. To put it in context, Ireland imported about €4.8 billion from Israel proper in 2022, so we’re talking about fractions of 1% of the total trade activity.
Further, the Irish Government has not enacted the bill, despite years of loud campaigning on the subject from pro-Palestinian activists, because it has argued that to do so would be in contravention of EU law. At the moment, Ireland has no sovereignty over its own trading relationships because trade is a European Union competence. Ireland is not permitted to unilaterally sanction third party countries, just as it is not allowed to unilaterally sign trade agreements with other countries. Think of it this way: The EU would not permit Ireland to decide by itself to re-open trade with Russia over oil and gas and directly import from that sanctioned country. Similarly, it would not permit us to unilaterally impose trade sanctions on Israel.
The Government now says things may have changed, but its argument is not very convincing.
The basis for the alleged change is the non-binding advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in the Hague, delivered on July 14th last. That opinion “reaffirms” that Israeli presence in “occupied Palestinian territory” is unlawful, and that all states – including Ireland – are under an obligation not to recognise said occupation as legal or lawful.
On this basis, the Irish Government has asked the Attorney General to look again at the bill, to see if the advisory opinion of the ICJ might give it a hook to ignore EU trade law and unilaterally impose some kind of trade sanctions. As is the case with the Government’s decision in the summer to recognise a Palestinian state, all parties broadly agree that such a bill would be much more symbolic than it would be practical, as the impact on Israeli trade would be next to zero.
Advocates for the bill, however, argue that its enactment would be a strong signal of international moral pressure being placed on Israel, and a symbol of that country’s isolation in the international community.
All of these ideas strike me as relatively weak sauce.
First, if Israel really is as bad as the bill’s supporters make out, then sanctioning the occupied territories only is a useless act that would be flattered by calling it a half measure. The policy of “occupation”, if that is something the state objects to, is directed from Israel’s capital in Jerusalem, and supported by the economic might of its central business districts in Tel Aviv, neither of which would be sanctioned by the bill. This is the legislative equivalent of giving the Israelis two fingers, which they’re probably well used to from the Government in Dublin.
Second, the sheer administrative burden of trying to figure out what to sanction is a headache the Irish state doesn’t necessarily need: Is a microchip made in Tel Aviv using metals mined in the west bank sanctioned, or is it not? No less an authority than the Government’s former Attorney General, Seamus Woulfe, described the bill as “vague and difficult to enforce” for that very reason.
Third, there is the very questionable legal case being made by the Government that EU law can be in some way amended by an advisory and non-binding opinion of the International Court of Justice. It would be wrong to pre-empt the Attorney General’s view on this matter, but one reasonably competent lawyer (who is reasonably supportive of the bill) described this to me as “an unpersuasive argument”.
Fourth, there is the political precedent: The European Union, as we know, is not only quite keen on its common trade policy, but also increasingly enamoured with its common foreign and security policy.
Now, to some readers, the idea of pissing off the Europeans might sound like a feature, not a bug – but if you’re of that disposition remember that the Government, officially, is not. Indeed, the Government bases its entire EU policy around the idea that Ireland is a good European nation that co-operates with and enhances the Brussels experience. EU capitals are very unlikely to wish to deal with nonsense like this bill, especially since the impact of the bill is so negligible in practical terms.
Other EU countries, if they wish to sanction Israel, have ways of doing so. The United Kingdom, for example, suspended some arms licenses in protest at the current conflict and reduced arms exports to Israel. Arms licenses are broadly outside EU trade laws, since a country can always choose who to sell weapons to. In most EU capitals, or the ones that matter, this is the form of diplomatic or trade action that interests them.
Banning a few tins of date fruit from the Golan Heights is not on their radar.
The Irish Government, of course, knows all of this – all I’ve given you in this article are the very reasons that the Occupied Territories Bill has never, to date, been passed. Readers who find themselves persuaded that all those reasons are now moot, and that Government might suddenly be interested in passing the bill in the coming months should remember two things:
First, that we’re about to have a general election.
Second, that it is very likely that the Attorney General’s opinion will not be made public – if it is at all – until after you’ve cast your votes.