In an economy where people vote with their finances, consumer awareness is becoming a more topical issue. Ethical trading practices have become more commonly discussed, markings such as the 1998 Fairtrade label on goods highlights to consumers that their products are produced in places where workers are treated fairly and have been paid livable wages. In more recent years, the 2015 EU labelling policy required products from illegal Israeli settlements to be labelled as such. In a statement to the Times of Israel, a spokesperson from the EU embassy, Ramat Gan, said the following in regards to the new policy, “clear and non-misleading indication of origin is an essential part of the EU’s consumer policy”. While policies such as these do not always lead to substantial change, it is an important step in allowing people to choose where they put their money.
Prior to the enacting of labelling policies, people used boycotting as a means of protest, one of the more famous examples being the Montgomery Bus Boycott to protest segregation during the civil rights movement in America and the boycott against South African goods to stop apartheid. In recent years, there has been a transformation in how boycotting has been approached that aligns with the rise of social media and online activism. This has led to a rise in collective action and consumer responsibility. Increasingly consumers are making choices about what corporations and countries align with their personal belief systems. In relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict, companies such as Starbucks have seen a 7% sales decline globally due to boycotts. While it is unrealistic to stop supporting every single company that supports Israel, awareness from boycotting and social media has allowed people to become more conscious of where they give their money to.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has become more known on a global scale due to the Hamas-led October 7th attacks in Gaza. This was the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1947 Arab-Israeli War. The Gaza strip, one of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank, has been deemed as illegal by the International Court of Justice. With the court ruling that Israel had, “an obligation to immediately cease all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers”. Little has changed since this ruling, which is unsurprising considering the settlements have been in place since the 1967 war. This includes the West Bank, the Gaza strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. The controversy over these settlements raises important legal and ethical questions, especially regarding the rights of Palestine and the possibility of a two-state solution.
Ireland’s history with imperialism and colonialism has deeply influenced the country’s relationship to Palestine. This is what makes the Occupied Territories Bil so important. The Occupied Territories Bill was first proposed by the Irish government in 2018, planning to ban “trade with and economic support for illegal settlements in territories deemed occupied under international law.” While the bill was passed with majorities in both the Seanad and Dáil, it has yet to be enacted. On January 19, 2025, incoming Taoiseach Micheál Martin confirmed that the existing bill would be replaced by new legislation, a declaration that was subsequently criticised by the authors of the bill including Senator Frances Black. When the motion came up in the Dáil at the beginning of February, the Sinn Féin TD, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, tabled the motion deferring the vote to the following week. In the following weeks, it was confirmed by Micheál Martin that the bill would not be ready before the summer recess. After Martin met with Jewish-American groups in America, he confirmed that a revised version of the bill would be prepared. The Israeli government has criticized Ireland’s move as counterproductive, asserting that it undermines efforts for peace. While some agree with this on a moral level, there have also been concerns of economic impact on businesses involved in trade with the settlements.
Looking at the outline of the Bill, what does it mean for the general public? The bill has repercussions for those who do not follow it, including fines up to €250,000 and five years in prison. Companies that source products from settlements areas would need to reevaluate their supply chains in order to comply with new legislation, potentially increasing costs. As of 2024, the value of goods being imported to Ireland from Israel reached 500 million euro. If the bill is enacted, it would align Ireland’s trade policy with its political stance. It would also align with the long-term relationship between Ireland and Palestine. Ireland was the first European Union member state to support Palestine’s presence in the United Nations’ General Assembly. While there is uncertainty surrounding the broader economic repercussions, the Occupied Territories Bill could potentially deter foreign investment linked to Israeli settlements. When considering fiscal investment done through trade with another country, Ireland’s relationship with Palestine should not be forgotten. As public sentiment around human rights issues continues to grow, Ireland’s actions could resonate globally. Enshrining the Occupied Territories Bill into Irish law could encourage a growing dialogue about the importance of ethical trade practices.
