Senior ministers concerned about effects of Occupied Territories Bill.

I don't think so. I mean, yes, it won't be the ICJ. But, rather than the ECJ telling member states what to do, the member states will use the structures of the EU — the Council, the Commission — to make and implement a collective decision. The ECJ might have some involvement in enforcing the decision, including on recalcitrant states that dissent from it, but frankly I doubt that it will come to that.

I'm not expecting anything to be done quickly — these processes are not built for speed — and I also think that whatever might be done will be relatively modest, because it will represent a compromise between the various EU member states, which include some influential ones that are still very reluctant to criticise Israel. (Looking at you, Germany.) I realise the also have to discuss the measures with Israel. That adds to delay, but it doesn't really change whatever measures will be adopted; they have to discuss them with Israel, not agree them with Israel.

Nevertheless it's signficant, for a couple of reasons.

The first it that it will lead to a formal fact-finding investigation, the results of which — let's be honest here — are not going to flatter Israel. That'll be on the record; it'll attract notice; It'll have a status that reports or allegations by NGOs or advocacy groups mostly don't have. And it'll have consequences that go beyond the decisions made by the Association Council. For example, its findings will certainly be cited by those who push for a boycott of settlement goods, which is not an aspect of the trade agreement (the trade agreement doesn't include settlement goods) and so is something that can proceed without requiring any amendment to the trade agreement.

A second is that it will involve EU member states taking a position, and fewer and fewer of them are willing to take a position that is uncritical of Israel. This process was kicked off by the Netherlands, a state generally regarded as moderate and pro-Israel. It highlights a wider change which is happening, which is that the Netenyahu government, by its incremental extremism, is narrowing and narrowing Israel's support base in the international community, alienating one friend after another. Israel doesn't want to be left largely reliant on the support of the Trump regime because, as we all know, Trump is not reliable. But that's the direction in which Netenyahu is taking the country, and this will be — and will be seen as — a big step along that road.

The more egregious human rights violations become, the less point there is in doing anything about them?

Right, gotcha.

If that is so, then the Occupied Territories Bill will apply to occupied Tibet as it does to occupied Palestine. Presumably you will now be supporting the Occupied Territories Bill?

It will piss off some Americans and there's a small chance jobs could be lost.

What do you expect this bill to do for the Palestine people to justify potential negative impacts for Irish citizens.

I explained it in the post you quoted.

There are obvious historical reasons for Germany's policy towards Israel.

Yes.

Actually, the term "Israeli settlements" is included in the title of the government's version of the OTB. So I think we can assume that, if it becomes law, it won't apply to Tibet or Crimea or Western Sahara.

OK, that's a differenence from the current Bill. We'll have to wait for the publication of the government's Bill to see exactly what it says about this.

(Though, as you pointed out yourself earlier, Tibet isn't generally accepted by the international community as being illegally occupied by China. So, even if the Bill is not confined to the Palestinian territories, it's unlikely that it would extend to Tibet.)

(As for Crimea, Russia as the occupying power is already the subject of wider and deeper sanctions than this Bill proposes, so there isn't the same case for extending this Bill to Crimea. Also I don't think that the Russians have put settlers or settlements in Crimea — the population has been majority ethnic Russian all along. So there isn't the distinction that you have in relation to the Palestinian territories between goods produced by the native population of the occupied territory — not boycotted — and goods produced by occupation settlers — boycotted.)

Harris has indicted the possibility of including services in the ban on trade with the settlements. But the impression was given that services wouldn't be included. So why are the government constantly changing their minds?

I don't think it's a case of "changing their minds", so much as "making their minds up for the first time". The Bill currently in the Oireachtas was a private member's Bill, so was never government policy. When the government accepted the principle of the Bill they made it clear that they would need to think through the detail, and would introduce their own Bill rather than simply continue with the original Bill.

The original Bill didn't cover services and, judging from its title, neither will the Government Bill. Harris now says that he's "willing to consider" the inclusion of services; presumably, it'll be up to those who advocate this to table an appropriate amendment when the Bill is debated in the Oireachtas, and Harris is signalling that he won't automatically reject it; he'll consider it on its merits when he sees it. I don't think we can really present this as "constant changes of mind". He hasn't changed his mind up to this point, and all he is now indicating is that he is open to changing his mind, if a good enough case can be made.

(It's technically difficult to include services. Goods are to be boycotted based on (among other things) whether they are produced in the occupied territories. But services aren't "produced"; they're "delivered". And they're delivered where the customer is, so an Irish boycott of services can obviously only apply to services delivered in Ireland, or possibly delivered to Irish customers. So how are we to identify the services to be boycotted? What link, between the delivery of a service and the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, would have to exist in order to bring the service within the scope of the boycott?)

I only mentioned Tibet because someone on this thread mentioned it and I had already addressed Tibet's legal status in response to someone mentioning Tibet either on this thread or on the one about the OTB in the Legal Discussion forum.

Sure. Tibet has come up a couple of times in this thread. But I think we agree that it is a different case, for the reason mentioned. While you might argue about what, if anything, Ireland should do about Tibet, a suggestion that people who call for something to be done in relation to Palestine without also calling for the exact same thing to be done in relation to Tibet are exhibiting "double standards" or have "sinister motives" is — I'm putting this as charitably as I can — not very bright.

What are the government more afraid of - the opposition parties or the prospect of people losing their jobs because of US and Israeli (i.e. Wix) businesses withdrawing from this country in response to the OTB?

Expressing a view on the Israel-Palestine conflict is no reason to, metaphorically speaking, commit collective hara-kiri.

We can approach this dilemma in one of two ways:

• We should never jeopardise our own interests in even the smallest degree on account of injustice done to, or oppression suffered by, others.
• Actually, we should be at least open to doing this.

The former position is absolutist (and also, I hope you agree, morally repugnant); the latter position requires a consideration of:

• how much, and in what way, any particular action actually does jeopardise our interests
• how much benefit or solace that action might bring to the victims of the injustice or oppression
• how these two things should be weighed against one another.

There's always a degree of speculation about this; we don't actually know what price we might pay if we proceed with this Bill. Similarly, we don't actually know how much the Bill will help anyone. But (unless we use uncertainty as a fig-leaf to disguise the fact that, actually, we're not prepared to do anything at all) we can't use the fact of these uncertainties as a reason for doing nothing. It's almost always the case with political decisions that, while we have hopes about how they will play out, we can't actually know that they will play out that way. So you get the best information you can; you make the best judgment you can; and you act on that.

A useful question to ask, if someone denies that the balance lies in favour of proceeding with the Bill, is "well, what should we be prepared to do in response to this injustice/oppression?" And answer to that question will reveal whether we are more concerned with minimising the harm to ourselves, or maximising the benefit to the victims.

The way you frame the question above ("What are the government more afraid of?") implies that you think the government must see this as a lose-lose choice. No matter which way they jump, they don't think any positive consequences can emerge from the Bill, so the whole thing is just a harm minimisation exercise. No offence, but you may be projecting your own assumptions onto the government there.

You also only look at domestic harms; harms accruing to or in Ireland. To the casual reader, this might suggest that you simply dismiss as irrelevant the interests of the people actually affected by Israeli policy in the occupied territories — i.e. you hold to the position which I describe above as "morally repugnant". But (you'll be relieved to hear) I don't think that's the case. It's clear from this thread that you're not open to the possiblity that Israel might be doing anything wrong. You justify whatever they do and, if one justification collapses, you cast about for another. The reason that you attach no weight to how we respond to injustice or oppression is that you don't accept that Israeli policy in the occupied territories is, or can be, unjust or oppressive. I think your answer to the hypothetical question I suggested above ("If not the Bill, what should we do about Israeli injustice or oppression?") would be something like "Nothing. There is no Israeli injustice or oppression here that requires a response."

But I think you'll accept that that's not a widely-held view; the bulk of even moderate opinion is very critical of Israel. And this is why I think you shouldn't project your own assumptions on to the government here. They do think there are serious problems with what Israel is doing, and therefore you can't assume that their judgments about the Bill are driven solely by a consideration of the harms that could result in Ireland.