What is the OTB?
After decades of occupation, settlement expansion, and ongoing human rights abuses in Palestine, Ireland has yet to impose a single meaningful sanction—despite repeated promises from the government to act. As Leader of the Social Democrats Holly Cairns TD put it, it is time for the state to “put their legislation where their mouth is”.
The Occupied Territories Bill (OTB) could do just that. First proposed by Independent Senator Frances Black in 2018, it is designed to restrict Irish trade with illegal Israeli settlements by banning the import and sale of goods—and originally, services—originating in occupied territories. A government-amended version narrows this scope to goods alone, making it a criminal offence to import products from settlements built on internationally recognised Palestinian land.
On November 7th, Opposition party leaders—along with Independent Senator Frances Black—tabled a joint motion demanding that the government not only pass the bill immediately but also restore the provision banning services. The opposition—including Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats, and the Green Party—is united on this issue, which became increasingly clear on Wednesday, November 19th, when the motion was debated in the Dáil, during People Before Profit’s (PBP) private members’ time.
While the motion went unopposed by the government on Wednesday, there has been no updated, clear statement made by the government on its current position. Despite cross-party support and a whopping 74 per cent of the Irish public backing the bill (as of six months ago), the bill continues to face years worth of delays. This begs the question—why?
What’s Holding Ireland Back?
The first, and most cited, is the legal consideration. In recent debates, An Taoiseach Micheál Martin and Tánaiste Simon Harris told the Dáil that including services in the bill will render the bill unimplementable. Nonsense. First of all, under the Genocide Convention as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention, restricting trade with illegal settlements is not only legitimate, it is arguably required. And the United Nations released a report detailing the violations Israel has made under the Genocide Convention in September 2025. Further, Spain, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Denmark all passed similar legislation sanctioning Israel within the last year. If they can do it, Ireland can too.
But legal arguments aren’t the only hurdle. Political pressure looms large, particularly from the United States. People Before Profit Deputy Paul Murphy said to the Dáil, “The reality is that the opposition to the ban is coming from the Trump administration and pro Israel lobbyists in the US, and the Government is bending to those threats”. Clearly, it’s not about legal concerns or practical implementation; it’s about avoiding the political fallout of displeasing a powerful ally. But at some point Ireland has to decide whether its foreign policy is rooted in moral principles or in keeping US elites comfortable.
The final reason for the delays in enactment is the matter of economics, which, perhaps not coincidentally, also aligns with pressure from the U.S. Don’t get me wrong, it is understandable why the government may be worried about negative economic consequences. The US and Israel are two of Ireland’s major economic allies, and Ireland relies heavily on Foreign Direct Investment from the US. However, their fear is unsubstantiated. To date, no multinational company has threatened to withdraw from Irish markets on account of Israel-Palestine decisions. It appears, again, that the Irish government is more concerned with the comfort of a handful of powerful partners than the interests of its own public or the well-being of an entire people. Every so-called practical reason for delaying the OTB—legal, geopolitical, or economic—is met with an even more compelling counterweight: morality.
The Moment to Act
Despite repeatedly pledging to progress the OTB during the last general election, the Irish government has yet to follow through. As Social Democrats leader Holly Cairns has pointed out, the bill now sits among a growing list of commitments that have been “completely abandoned”, including childcare and housing. This disconnect fuels mounting frustration: Ireland frequently proclaims solidarity with Palestine, yet it has never once imposed a sanction on Israel. Passing the OTB would offer the government a chance to prove its critics wrong by backing its sympathetic words with tangible action and honouring the commitments it made to voters.
There is also precedent for Ireland taking a stand when others would not. In the 1980s, Ireland became the first Western country to ban imports from apartheid South Africa. It was a small nation acting on principle, and history ultimately vindicated that decision. Supporters of the OTB argue that Ireland now faces a similar moment, with the opportunity to prove its commitment to those same standards starring Ireland squarely in the face.
Real-World Consequences
As symbolically and morally significant as the OTB is—especially the inclusion of services—it’s not all gesture or rhetoric. According to Trócaire, 70 per cent of Ireland’s trade with Israel falls under the category of services. So, ceasing all trade with Israel is bound to have some material effect.
Illegal Israeli settlements continue to expand, displacing Palestinians and undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state. Economic pressure is one of the few tools available to Ireland to push back, and while the OTB wouldn’t end settlement expansion on its own, it would help disrupt the economic system that sustains it. In doing so, it could influence Israeli policy, encourage similar action across the EU, and shift incentives that currently support the occupation by disrupting Israel’s economic system. Ireland now has a chance to make a historic, tangible impact on people’s lives and on the region’s political future.
Will Services Make the Cut?
The question you might still be asking yourself is will services be included in the final version of the OTB, assuming it finally passes. The answer: it’s hard to say.
What we do know is that both the Attorney General and the Oireachtas Foreign Affairs Committee have confirmed that including services is legally permissible. On the diplomatic front, Ms McDonald noted that Ireland’s relationship with the United States is “deep and enduring”, supported by an “enormous population of Irish-Americans”, and unlikely to be derailed by a widely supported human-rights measure.
And while uncertainty remains, it is at least encouraging that the government did not oppose Wednesday’s motion. Whether that signals genuine openness or simply political caution is unclear—but it leaves the door, however slightly, still open for services to make it into the final bill.
Ultimately, it comes down to if the Irish government can be steadfast in the face of external pressures, (exaggerated) economic anxiety, and (invalid) legal concerns—and how seriously it weighs these considerations alongside moralistic duties, international reputation, and the desire to prove political legitimacy to its citizens.
