Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-15
============================================================

Helen McEntee (FG), Meath East

I thank all the Senators for being here and, indeed, for the points that they have raised. I also acknowledge the Palestinian ambassador, who is present.
Maybe to start with that last point, I appreciate when you look at the different translations they all form a different form of words. In looking at our own legislation and our own wording, we have engaged with those countries. We have engaged with other member states. What we have set out here is very clear in our intention and what they have set out is very clear in their intention that they would comply with and that their language would adhere to the EU-Israel Association Agreement. That is what we want to align with because that is where we know we are using the same language, we are using the same postcodes, and we are not establishing something new where there can be any confusion or where we are then different to other member states or other countries. On the translation of theirs, when you speak to them they are clear that their language is so that they are complying with the association agreement, that they are complying with the postal codes used through the association agreement and then the technical agreement so that we are all applying it in the same way. I am confident that the language that we have allows for that and our intention and objective here, from all of us, is the exact same. The association agreement refers to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory because it means any Israeli settlement is illegal. Under the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruling of 2024, any Israeli settlement is illegal so we do not need to differentiate between what is legal and what is illegal. Anything under the ICJ ruling that is in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal.
To create our own definition of an Israeli settlement would, in itself, pose its own challenges and risks. I am not sure it would add to the Bill. Goods from settlements in designated postcodes would remain prohibited and the mechanism for providing limited exemptions would remain the same as well.
In terms of the existing process, the association agreement but namely, the EU-Israel Technical Arrangement, which is based on the list of postal codes referenced, the other European countries are also taking action by using this list of postal codes. We are very much aligned. We are engaging with those countries as they are progressing theirs, although ours is the only Government that is bringing it forward via primary legislation and ours is somewhat more comprehensive in that way.
The list itself is comprehensive. It is regularly updated. I brought this with me to the committee, but there is a clear list published on the European Commission website. Once this Bill is enacted, it will be clear for people to see on our own website as well.
The list is fluid in the context of the fact that there are persistent settlements. It is consistent. The Israeli Government has been clear that it intends that there be more. This is not going to stop. That is why we want to make sure that our legislation aligns with the EU and the Commission.
I believe that the EU and the Commission have been faithful in identifying those settlements. I would not suggest that they are not making sure that every new settlement is put in this list. I believe that they are because they are bound as well by the technical agreement. While we might not agree with it at present, it is essentially the case that, because Israel gets preferential trade treatment under the association agreement, in order to differentiate between the occupied territories and Israel, the technical agreement is there to make sure that no trade coming from the occupied territories gets that preferential treatment. They have to comply with that as well. This is an EU technical arrangement. They have to make sure that they are very specific, as we are, in identifying where the illegal occupied territories are and we do not want to deviate from this system.
On amendment No. 17, as to a report on postal codes, we will be updating every time there is an update on new settlements. Essentially, it is a new report every time there is an update. As for having one in six months' time, there may or may not be new settlements. Either way, they will be updated on our website. They will be updated on the Commission website. They will be there for people to see.
Senator Black touched on the postal codes and part 1 and part 2. I probably did not get into this in the same detail on Committee Stage in the Dáil. Approximately 90%, as the Senator says, of the postal codes listed are part 1 postal codes and these are directly correspondent to Israeli settlements. Less than 10% of the codes are part 2 postal codes and these are essentially the locations that fall on both sides of the green line - the pre-1967 Israel-Palestine border. In practice, it means we are still talking about Israeli settlements, but it is in Israel and in the occupied territories or in the Israeli settlement postal codes. In part 2, the operators are advised to contact the customs authority but this is specifically to state whether they get preferential treatment or otherwise. The part 2 element of it is to identify whether the Israeli settlements are on the Israel-proper side of the line or whether they are on the settlement side so that they do or do not get preferential trade treatment.
What Senator Black is talking about is within that, if you have a Palestinian exporter that may be part of the part 2 postal code. I would say it is a very small category of individuals, if they do, because Palestinians are not living in settlements. They would not be trading under the association agreement or the technical agreement. They would be trading under the EU-Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement. To the Senator's point, if there is a good that has come from a Palestinian trader, they will not have a marking that has the association agreement on it. If it gets to Ireland, there would be very clearly a marking that would be specific to the EU-Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement and there would be no need for them to have to have it taken off the shelf. For them to get that, they have to get approval from the Palestinian Authority and you would not have somebody from an Israeli settlement getting approval from the Palestinian Authority to have that particular route. They rely on the preferential tariff-free access. They do not require the different postal codes. They just have to get that approval from the Palestinian Authority and we are able to differentiate on that basis. To introduce something new or something different, I suppose you are not making it more straightforward. You are potentially creating challenges in that regard.
In terms of the postal code, this would not come up as an Israeli postal code because they would have to go through the EU-Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement.
I completely understand and appreciate that the amendments are intended to make absolutely certain that nobody from the Palestinian community will be captured by this. I believe that, based on the fact that you have the association agreement, the technical agreement and, separately, the Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement, there is a clear delineation as to where the products are coming from or where the communities are coming from, but it is important that the Customs is checking that and that they are complying with this. That applies to all member states individually. To be honest, this is a debate. While we are having other discussions at a European level around banning trade, there are some member states raising the question around how do we make sure that what we have there now is fully compliant, that the technical arrangement is being applied appropriately and that requires each member state to make sure that its customs service is checking that it is compliant with its own obligations as well. No matter what we do here, we have to make sure at home that the Customs is clear as to what it needs to check for, what is allowed and what is not. Every member state has to do that, but also you have the Customs on the ground as well that is asked to check which area it is coming from.
It is for those reasons that I will not be accepting the amendment, but I believe our overall objective is exactly the same here and we want to achieve the same outcome. I am satisfied that what is here and the rules that are currently in place are in line with what other member states will be progressing. It makes sure that those who might be in that very small minority within subsection (2) of the postal code section will be protected under this.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-15/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:16+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-15