2. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether his Department has had engagement with, or diplomatic representations from, US counterparts around the exclusion of services from the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38290/25]

Sentiment score: 0.08

My question is on whether the Tánaiste's Department has had engagement with or diplomatic representations from US counterparts around the exclusion of services from the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. Last week, the Taoiseach said in comments to the media that the aim of the OTB must be to pressure Israel to end the war in Gaza and not "disadvantage Ireland unduly". He made special reference to some US states that have anti-boycott legislation. Has the US been pressuring the Government on this? Are we only happy to fulfil our obligations so long as it costs us nothing? That is the context in which I ask this.

Sentiment score: 0.04

The question was about the last Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am not totally clear. The Tánaiste mentioned interactions with the ambassador but perhaps he could clarify exactly the extent of the diplomatic interactions he had with the US. I am specifically asking about the previous Bill, not this one.

Sentiment score: -0.11

My concern relates to whether we are saying that the wishes of the House and the Irish people on this matter are subservient to legislation passed in, say, Alabama or New Jersey and whether we are unwilling to fulfill our obligations under international law because state-level law in another country means it might cost us something. When it comes to international trade and sanctioning of Ireland on this, we are properly protected from rebuke by EU-level reciprocity of sanctions. I must say clearly here in this Chamber that when it comes to fulfilling our obligations under the UN Charter and the genocide convention, there is no caveat that says it does not apply if it will cost you. Some of the worst violations of international law are very lucrative. We do not engage with them because they are illegal and because they are wrong, and that again is the context in which I ask these questions.

Sentiment score: -0.10

I am glad the Tánaiste clarified that. That is exactly the case. The occupied territories Bill is not designed to stop the genocide in Gaza. It would simply put pressure on Israel but its actual function, as drafted in 2018, long before the current genocide erupted 18 months ago, is to cease trade with illegal settlements on stolen land. We all know that. Whether the US or a US state likes it or not should not inhibit us in prohibiting the trade of stolen goods and services. I understand the Tánaiste taking into account how to support business in the wider context of tariffs. However, I am asking the Government to be clear that it is not a justification for not complying with international law and banning trade with the settlements. I have to say that again and again, on various topics but on this area in particular, that what is put forward is that we have to consider Irish jobs and the economy, but we have to prioritise the moral obligation that we have to cease the genocide. For me, that means that we set in place a Bill right now to stop trade with Israel that includes services. I am terrified of the domino effect that we are going to set off if we do not include services. Because Ireland is the first country that is doing it, it will mean that every country that follows also introduces weak legislation.

Sentiment score: -0.09