Helen McEntee
Meath East · Fine Gael · Ireland
“There are no new missions, so there is only so much we can partake in. In regard to UN requests over the past ten years, in September 2019, we had 14 Defence Forces personnel deployed to a UN mission in Mali as part of a joint operation with the German armed forces.”
“I thank the Deputy for his continued engagement on this matter. It is appreciated and I reaffirm our shared commitment to truth and justice, not least for Private Rooney, but in particular for his family.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I know he is committed to this issue; I am too. I have in recent months spent some time travelling to different barracks and Army bases and meeting with personnel. What I see all over the country is their professionalism, dedication and commitment.”
“I disagree that people are being pushed into the courts. The situation is exactly the opposite. I have said in the Chamber many times since I started taking these questions that the State Claims Agency is there and wants to mediate and work directly with people in order that cases do not go directly to the courts.”
“We are all committed to strengthening recruitment to and supporting retention in the Permanent Defence Force. The military authorities have advised that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,823 personnel on 31 May, the most recent date for which we have a figure available.”
“It is the case that no mission is the same, so it is also a matter for the Defence Forces to assess and scope out the mission and then to decide whether it is a mission we can partake in. A question keeps being asked about what it is we would not be able to be a part of if we were to keep the triple lock.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,132 lines we hold for Helen McEntee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 43.
“I have said that if this does not happen at a European level, it is all the more reason we should have this other legislation. We have lots of legislation in our programme for Government and not all of it gets implemented in the first couple of months or the first year. We have to work through it. I have worked with the Attorney General because we need to make sure that we have legislation that can be implemented and can take effect. That is what everybody here wants. There is an element of making sure that we do what is principled, and I believe that Ireland has always taken that approach when it comes to Palestine, Gaza and what is happening in the West Bank.”
“It would have a significant economic impact on Israel. That is something we should have done before now, but Ireland has called for it. We have been at the table and calling for this, but others have not agreed. What I have been trying to do is to build a consensus. I have also asked for a proposal that would ban trade with the illegal settlements, separate from the ban on violent settlers that we have already agreed. That is in place, has been agreed and will be followed through on. I want action at a European level because that is how we have the greatest impact. Yes, Spain has already imposed its legislation, but I want to ensure that we move collectively and have legislation individually. In response to Deputy Ó Laoghaire, I am not confused at all in what I have said this week. I have said we should move both.”
“That is exactly what we are doing. We are taking a little time to build a consensus. At a European level, I have been sitting around the table for the past few months. Months ago, there was no discussion of how we would move or impose sanctions. There was nothing. Sanctions have been on the table at the Commission since last year. I have, with colleagues from Slovenia and Spain, over recent weeks and months, pushed for this issue to be put back on the agenda. Because of that, what we agreed last week was sanctions on violent settlers in the West Bank. That was one sanction that was on the table, and not before time, but there are more. The next sanction on the table is that we would suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel association agreement. That is for all of Israel and not just the West Bank.”
“That is somebody who is on the ground and sees what is happening. His view is that Europe needs to respond collectively in this kind of way and I have been advocating for that for months. Separate from that, I say clearly that we will fulfil our commitment in the programme for Government. We will bring forward legislation because it is the right thing to do. However, I also want to make sure that the actions we take have a knock-on impact and change the actions of the Israeli Government. That is what has to happen here. The actions we saw this week were despicable. We all agree that this is just one action in a string of actions that we have seen over recent years.”
“At home in Ireland, we have always taken that approach, from recognising Palestine to the humanitarian aid we have provided and raising the issue at every Foreign Affairs Council, and every single Council that we can. I will also, for the first time, ensure the matter is raised this week at the trade Council. The only way we can pass this at European level is where there is qualified majority voting, QMV. That is why we have focused on trade. It is why we have focused on the suspension of the trade agreement. Instead of needing unanimity, QMV is needed. I will be raising this directly with colleagues at the trade Council on Friday this week. I will be pushing for this to be put to a vote at the Foreign Affairs Council. I spent an hour and a half with my Jordanian colleague yesterday.”
“That is not an approach we have taken in any sanction placed on Russia or any other part of the world where sanctions have been imposed by the EU. I believe that the European Union should agree to the proposal that we suspend the Israeli association agreement and, in particular. its trade elements. I have also advocated for a second proposal to ban trade within the West Bank and with the settlers. That is the most appropriate approach to take. It is in line with what has been said internationally. This is what we have been advocating for. It would be in tandem with our occupied territories legislation. This is the principle and the right thing to do.”
“Thankfully with a new government in place, Hungary lifted that ban. Last week, there was an agreement from the EU that we would impose sanctions on violent settlers, members of Hamas and anybody who supported these types of actions in the West Bank. What I have subsequently done, and did clearly at the most recent meeting, is to advocate for a further vote at the next Council meeting. A second Commission motion has been on the table since last year to ban or suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel association agreement. Israel as a whole gets preferential treatment through that trade agreement. It is worth billions to the Israeli economy. It is not a blanket ban like the ban that was being voted on last night. The reason we voted against that is that it is a sanction on every single person in Israel.”
“While introducing this is the right thing to do, and I will, as I have said clearly, bring forward legislation in a matter of weeks, I also firmly believe that bringing forward changes at a European level will have a much greater impact. I have been working on that, too. For the past number of months, I have been engaging directly with my colleagues. I have been engaging directly with the High Representative to ensure that we can put this back on the agenda at a European level. It has not been on the agenda since last summer before a ceasefire was agreed. What we agreed last week at the Foreign Affairs Council was, for the first time, a Commission proposal that has been on the table since last year to impose sanctions on violent settlers, and for it to be agreed. It had been prevented because of the position that Hungary had taken.”
“The main purpose, obviously, is to prohibit the importation of goods into the State from the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. I have been clear with this House that since it was published, a number of questions needed to be asked of the Attorney General and that information has come back and forth to me. What I can say is that I will bring forth legislation in the coming weeks. We, as a Government, and I, as a Minister, have said that we will fulfil our commitment. That has not changed just because of this week. I have been clear that I believe the best way to bring forward legislation is to do so with our colleagues. I have been engaged with my Dutch and Belgian colleagues and, more recently, my Slovenian colleague, whose Government is going through a particular change process at the moment.”
“I thank both Deputies for raising this matter. I do not believe there is a single person who saw the footage yesterday who could not but be appalled by what they saw. The Deputy is right that this is just another act by the Israeli Government among a string of acts we have seen over recent weeks, months and, indeed, years. The Irish Government has been consistent in its approach, and I, as Minister in recent months, have been consistent in mine. I have said very clearly that I will commit to bringing forward the occupied territories Bill. The Government approved the general scheme of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill last June.”
“He is in a pre-trial detention facility. I fully agree with the Deputy that this should not go on indefinitely. However, as the Deputy and every other Deputy in this House well knows, it is not for me to determine when a trial in another country should take place. What I have said to the Deputy is that I will raise this directly with my German colleague when I meet him on Friday, but I cannot, nor can any Deputy here, intervene in respect of when a trial is set and how its outcome is presided over. What I can be clear on, however, is that we will make sure we have sight of what is happening in the trial and that we are in direct communication with Daniel and ensuring his welfare at every stage.”
“I cannot be any clearer in what I am saying here. It is our role and responsibility to make sure that citizens, when they have been arrested and detained, have access to consular assistance. I am saying very clearly to the Deputy that this has been happening. There has been direct engagement with Daniel with a view to making sure he is in good health and is being treated well. That is exactly what he has conveyed and relayed.”
“We will ensure that we continue to have direct engagement and provide consular support to Daniel. We will make sure the trial, which I hope happens soon because I agree this should not be drawn out any further, is subject to direct oversight and that we have full sight of what is happening in it.”
“Absolutely. It is our role and duty to make sure the detainees are treated in the appropriate way. Daniel is in a pre-trial facility. He is being treated the same as others. I appreciate how difficult this is. The most important thing is that the facts of the trial are borne out. The Deputy has outlined some of what has happened. It is for the trial judge and the system itself to make sure all the facts are borne out. While the Deputy might not agree with the particular legislation under which Daniel has been charged, it is for the trial to ensure the facts of what happened are borne out and for a decision to be taken in that regard. We will ensure that there is fair oversight of this trial. I can assure the Deputy of that. I will be meeting my German colleague this week and I will reiterate that point when I meet him.”
“First, it is essential that any Irish citizen who finds himself in this situation be provided immediately with consular assistance, and that has been the case. I have said very clearly that our consular team on the ground cannot provide legal assistance. That is not the position it has. However, it is our role-----”
“Throughout the trial, when it happens, we will of course continue to engage directly with Daniel and his family and make sure the assistance continues.”
“I assure the Deputy, because I appreciate this is very difficult for Daniel and his family, that my Department will continue to provide all appropriate consular assistance. We have to do this in line with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, which specifies the functions of our consular officials. It is obviously subject to limits permitted by international law, so we cannot interfere in the domestic affairs of the receiving state. While consular officials have a role in assisting citizens, including by helping them to find lawyers and visiting them in detention, consular officials cannot give legal advice or intervene in the judicial process or internal affairs in the receiving state.”
“He reported that he has been treated relatively well, both physically and mentally, and that he is able to avail of the facilities and activities in the prison. His visiting conditions have been relaxed. He is able to have video calls and in-person visits with family members, and I understand that other visits may be possible as well. It is also important to stress that in the prison Daniel is in, he is the same as any other person. It is a normal or regular pre-trial detention facility. The reports I have directly from our ambassador, who is dealing directly with him and engaging with him and will have a further visit later this month, are that he is being treated well and has access to the facilities he needs. Again, it is the same for any other person in his situation.”
“I thank the Deputy. I am obviously aware of the case he has mentioned. It is important to stress that my Department, and in particular my team, have been providing consular assistance to Daniel since September 2025. We have a dedicated consular office in the consulate general in Munich which has been assigned to provide consular assistance to support Daniel but also his family, because I appreciate this is a difficult time for them. Staff in the consulate, including the consul general but also the deputy consul general, have undertaken four consular visits, the most recent on 10 April, and another visit is to be carried out next month. It is important to stress that the very clear readout I have received on this states Daniel did not raise any complaints about his treatment.”
“Some commentary has been made on our investment in defence and in security. Being a neutral country does not mean that we should not invest in our capabilities to defend ourselves or that we should not be able to engage with other countries so that we are working collectively together. That does not in any way impact on our military neutrality.”
“Ensuring we can continue to deploy such personnel, where justified and where appropriate, is in keeping with that proud tradition. By next year, there will be hundreds of troops who will not be able to participate in a UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon in a way we have done for decades. This is because of the triple lock. What we are proposing here is to make sure we can continue to deploy our troops. I will touch on one other point.”
“Rather, what is being proposed is a pragmatic adjustment to ensure Ireland is not unduly constrained in circumstances where international consensus may be blocked for reasons completely unrelated to the merits of a particular mission. They may be completely unrelated, and we have seen that happen. In such situations it is reasonable that we retain our sovereign capacity to determine our own course of action, subject to the appropriate democratic oversight. Our international reputation, as we all agree, has been built over many decades and it is one of consistency, independence and willingness to contribute constructively in support of peace and stability. Our Defence Forces personnel are widely respected for their professionalism, their integrity and their dedication in challenging environments.”
“Against that backdrop, it is both prudent and necessary that we ensure our legislative and policy frameworks remain fit for purpose. This includes ensuring the State has the capacity to respond in a timely and effective manner to emerging crises, whether they arise from conflict situations, humanitarian emergencies or risks to Irish citizens abroad. The ability to act when required and in line with our values is an essential component of a credible and responsible foreign and defence policy. Our participation in overseas missions, whether it is under the auspices of the United Nations, the European Union or other regional arrangements, has always been grounded in clear legal authority and a principled commitment to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. Nothing in the legislative proposals alters that fundamental position.”
“This does not come across, nor does the UN believe that this is Ireland pulling away. The UN understands the need for us to be able to deploy our troops and to support the many missions they feel they cannot support because of the veto. Ireland's reputation as a peace-builder and as a contributor to conflict resolution, peacekeeping, human rights and disarmament is well established and will continue to guide our approach. We have all touched on the security environment. We can see that it is different from previous decades. We are witnessing increased geopolitical tensions, a weakening of established multilateral mechanisms in certain instances and the emergence of new and complex threats that do not respect national borders.”
“Amending it does not change the fact that we are a neutral country. The reforms do not signal any move towards participation in military alliances, nor would they do anything to expeditionary operations or diminish our commitment to the UN or to multilateralism. On the contrary, we will continue to regard the principles of the UN Charter as the foundation of our international engagement and we will actively support efforts to strengthen and reform the multilateral system. I have briefed and engaged directly with Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, on our intended approach. Our position and our ongoing commitment to the UN are well understood within the UN system, just as our peacekeepers are highly valued and appreciated. The UN does not see this as Ireland pulling away from the UN.”
“All deployments will remain fully consistent with international law and with the principles of the UN Charter. Under these reforms we can continue to participate in missions such as Operation IRINI, which I have just mentioned. It is coming to an end and we will no longer be able to be part of it. On the question of any further potential missions in south Lebanon - I know our troops want to continue their work there - if the EU or any other regional organisation proposes such a mission, the House can decide to be part of that. I think that is a role the House should take on. I emphasise that even though the reforms to the triple lock legislation are often portrayed as altering our neutrality, they will not change our neutrality. I will repeat what Deputy Callaghan said: we were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced.”
“This is what we are trying to do. We have members of the Defence Forces who train, are highly skilled and are highly experienced. As missions are not being renewed because the UN Security Council is not operating in the way it should - we all know that - we are having to take back our troops and we are not able to continue the fantastic work we are so proud they have been doing for so many years. The legislative changes I am proposing will address this issue directly. It will remove the requirement for the UN mandate as part of the decision-making framework while retaining robust safeguards. People want to know that there will be robust safeguards; that there will be Government approval and Dáil approval, where appropriate; and that this will continue to be required.”
“We have a very proud tradition of sending thousands of members overseas over those years to protect people and keep them safe. The dynamic has changed and it is a very difficult situation now for civilians and our troops with that mission ending by next year. We will have no mandate to be able to support the people on the ground. We heard Deputy Callaghan speak and, like her, every peacekeeping troop or member of the Defence Forces I have met wants to continue that operation on the ground. That will not be possible. I will mention as another example Operation IRINI, which is an EU-led mission in the Mediterranean. We have our own troops on that mission. That is coming to an end on Sunday. It is not being renewed. We will not be able to keep our troops there as part of any new mission that is being progressed.”
“-----we are trying to keep peacekeeping troops on the ground for. The practical reality is that the veto power exercised or indeed threatened by permanent members of the Security Council can and does prevent action, including in circumstances where there is broad international support. For Ireland, this can create and in fact does create real and immediate consequences. In the absence of a UN mandate, deployments cannot proceed. They must cease, regardless of our position or of the will of this House. Deputy Heneghan asked why we are doing this now. I will give examples. We know very clearly that the troops I met in Limerick a few weeks ago will be the last operational mandate or battalion sent out to southern Lebanon for a peacekeeping mission that has been in situ for decades.”
“Crucially, it will ensure that decisions regarding the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas to peacekeeping missions are determined solely by the Government and Dáil Éireann, the sovereign representatives of the Irish people, rather than being subject to the veto of the permanent members of the UN, countries like the US, China and Russia, countries that are actually involved in conflicts-----”
“This legislation will consolidate and update existing provisions relating to overseas deployments and will modernise the framework in which such decisions are made. It will be reflective of the current global security environment, an environment in which no new peacekeeping mission has been proposed since 2014. Due to the veto of other countries, since 2014 we and UN peacekeeping missions have been blocked from progressing. The core objective of the legislative reforms proposed is to strengthen our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and to allow us to make our own decisions in terms of deploying our own troops.”
“I disagree with the idea that we would not have a discussion many years later in a space where we have elected representatives who represent all of our constituencies and are living in a changed global environment. It is not a constitutional principle. This is an opportunity for all of us, as elected representatives, to discuss the situation we find ourselves in. It is quite simple. We cannot operate in certain missions or certain missions that are due to end because of our triple lock. Amending the legislation underpinning this does not require a referendum. I am fully of the view that such a proposal would be neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of what we are discussing. The Government is committed to progressing the defence (amendment) Bill, the general scheme of which was approved on 4 March.”
“That commitment has been made repeatedly on the floor of the House and I again explicitly reaffirm it today. I want to again address a fundamental misconception at the heart of the motion before the House. The triple lock is not a defining feature of our neutrality. It is not set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann and it is not a constitutional requirement. Rather, it is a legislative mechanism grounded in the Defence Act. It governs the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel overseas, primarily in the context of UN-mandated missions. The triple lock evolved from political commitments during the Nice and Lisbon treaties process and we all accept that.”
“I also acknowledge that there are genuine concerns and, in some cases, misunderstandings regarding the impact the proposed amendments to the Defence Acts, including changes to the provision commonly referred to as the triple lock, may have on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Just a few seconds ago, we heard from a Deputy who said Ireland should not be dictated to by other countries while at the same time saying that we do not need to amend the triple lock, the very thing that allows other countries like the US, China and Russia to dictate exactly what we do. Let me be absolutely clear. Ireland's long-standing policy in regard to our neutrality remains unchanged. We do not participate in military alliances or mutual defence arrangements and I am being very clear when I say there are no plans by the Government to alter the position.”
“At the outset, I want to join many colleagues in acknowledging the exceptional service of the men and women of the Defence Forces currently deployed overseas. As we know, their work in peacekeeping missions often takes place in challenging and dangerous environments, as demonstrated most particularly in south Lebanon, and continues to reflect our enduring commitment to international peace and security. I am deeply conscious, not least because I met many of those members and their families in recent weeks, of the sacrifice they and their families make in serving their country and advancing the cause of peace. I fully recognise the strong public interest in and deep attachment to Ireland's neutrality, as well as the strength of feeling it continues to generate.”
“I am committed to progressing the occupied territories Bill and will continue to speak clearly about the unbearable suffering being endured by civilians in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon because Palestine is being overlooked. The world cannot allow this suffering to become normalised.”
“We have tried consistently to show leadership, not just in words but in action and to that effect, in January, following my visit to the region, I hosted a meeting of the global alliance for the implementation of the two-state solution, where Ireland shared lessons from our own peace process with regional partners and other states committed to peace. We will continue in that regard. Finally, we must make sure our measures are effective, legally sound and capable of building broader international support. Nobody should mistake my opposition or the Government's opposition to this Bill for silence or indifference. I will continue to press for stronger international action and to advocate for accountability.”
“This month marks two years since Ireland recognised the State of Palestine alongside Spain and Norway and later joined by Slovenia. I remain convinced that recognition was the right decision. It was taken against the backdrop of an intolerable humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the shrinking space for Palestinian life in the West Bank and the urgent need for injecting fresh momentum into efforts towards a just and lasting peace. At the time some argued it would make no difference but I disagreed then and continue to disagree now. Since that decision, international momentum behind Palestinian recognition has grown significantly, including across Europe.”
“We need to make sure that what we are going has an impact, that it changes the behaviour of the Israeli Government and above all, that it brings peace and solutions for those in Gaza and the West Bank and for Palestine more broadly. I want to be clear that I distinguish between the actions of the current Israeli Government and the Israeli people. Ireland's goal has always been to focus on peace, security and dignity for both Palestinians and Israelis. This is a goal shared by many Israeli citizens themselves. Our own history on this island teaches us of the danger of division, dehumanisation and endless cycles of violence. It also teaches us the importance of political courage and international support in building peace.”
“We have sought clarification on a number of different elements of this legislation. We need to make sure that anything we introduce is legally robust and capable of withstanding challenge but also that we can advance our broader policy objectives effectively. What I and the Government have always said is that where we work with member states, with colleagues together, we are stronger. I am engaging closely with my Dutch, Spanish, Slovenian and Belgian Government colleagues regarding their own approaches. Other governments are now moving on legislation. I remain absolutely committed to taking meaningful action in response to breaches of international law, international humanitarian law and human rights. I remain convinced that action at EU level will ultimately have the greatest impact.”
“The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade subsequently held hearings, received submissions and represented a broad range of perspectives, all of which were then fed to me and my Department and Government. The primary purpose of that legislation is to prohibit the importation into Ireland of goods originating in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. I thank Senator Black for her work in this regard and for her continued engagement with the Government. Legally, the regulation of services is significantly more complex at an EU level than the regulation of goods. That is why I have been engaging with the Attorney General who has provided detailed and extensive advice on whether the inclusion of services would be permissible but also on how we would progress this legislation more broadly.”
“Ireland has also consistently underlined the important distinction between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and are not recognised as part of Israel by the European Union, its member states and the overwhelming majority of UN member states. This distinction, again, is important. At the same time, Ireland will continue to take action domestically. Here at home, work is continuing on the commitment in the programme for Government to progress legislation prohibiting the importation of goods from occupied Palestinian territories following the ICJ advisory opinion. In June 2025, last summer, the Government approved the general scheme of the Israeli Settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2025.”
“At this week’s Foreign Affairs Council, I and others again called on the European Commission to bring forward proposals ahead of the June Council meeting, with a view to taking a vote on this issue. It would not just be a vote to ban or suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement but a vote with a view to banning trade with the occupied territories. In Brussels this week, a growing number of member states either joined this call, sought a vote or expressed a readiness to consider such a proposal. This is the first time I have seen this in the number of Councils that I have attended. Again, I appreciate that it is far beyond time for this to happen but it matters and it is progress. We need to continue, and I will continue to progress and to press for this approach.”
“Europe still needs to go further, however, and we will continue to press for further action, because if the international community continues to issue statements without consequences, the credibility of international law for all of us is weakened. The House will recall that on 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice, ICJ, delivered its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israeli policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory - a case in which Ireland, alongside more than 50 other states, made written and oral submissions. Since then, Ireland has continued to push for meaningful action at EU level, including restrictions on trade connected to illegal settlements.”
“On 18 April, Ireland, alongside Spain and Slovenia, wrote to the High Representative, Kaja Kallas, again expressing deep concern regarding Israeli Government actions and calling for urgent discussion of the association agreement. Ahead of that discussion, I was clear in calling for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The EU’s review of the agreement in 2025 found Israel to be in clear breach of its obligations. That situation continues, and that is why, with my colleagues from Spain and Slovenia, we wrote to ensure that this matter was raised at the Council and that we would make progress and take action on it. At the Foreign Affairs Council this week, I again called on EU partners to suspend the trade-related provisions of the agreement.”
“I and this Government believe that the strongest and most impactful route remains co-ordination at EU level, particularly in relation to the Israeli settlements and trade connected to the occupied Palestinian territories. This is an area where Ireland has shown leadership. I have repeatedly argued for stronger action, including sanctions on extremist settlers, restrictions relating to illegal settlements and the suspension of trade provisions under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Earlier this week, EU member states reached political agreement at our Foreign Affairs Council to sanction Israeli extremist settlers, entities and those enabling violence in the West Bank. I appreciate that step was overdue but it matters.”
“This Bill would amount to a blanket ban without any exemptions or derogations. It is well understood that EU sanctions regimes are designed carefully to avoid and mitigate unintended consequences, including consequences for civilian populations and access to essential goods such as food, medicines and emergency supplies. Again, this Bill would amount to a blanket ban without exemptions for any of these elements. There are important reasons, therefore, that this approach has not generally been taken in modern sanctions regimes relating to other conflicts, and the Government does not believe that it is the right approach here.”
“They want to know that international law still matters and that civilian lives matter equally. This is why I want to explain clearly, despite sharing many of the concerns that motivate this Bill, that I do not believe this legislation is the most effective or legally sustainable path forward. The Bill before the House would, in practice, amount to a blanket prohibition on trade in all goods, and certain services, between Ireland and Israel. In effect, it amounts to a boycott, divestment and sanctions approach with respect to Israel. The Government does not support that approach, although we fully recognise the right of individuals and organisations to make their own decisions in this regard. We do not operate a unilateral domestic sanctions regime. Instead, Ireland implements EU sanctions and UN sanctions through the EU framework.”
“The Israeli Parliament also passed a Bill on 30 March mandating death by hanging as the default punishment for West Bank residents convicted of terrorist acts by military courts. I utterly condemn this law passed by the Israeli Parliament expanding the scope of the death penalty and reviving its implementation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. We oppose the death penalty in all cases and in all circumstances. The right to life is absolutely fundamental and universal. We are all particularly concerned by the discriminatory nature of this legislation as it relates to Palestinians. I fully understand, and I share, the depth of feeling of many people in Ireland, in this House and in the Gallery about the ongoing suffering in Palestine. People want to see action. They want to see accountability.”
“Entire Palestinian communities are being pushed from their homes while extremist violence continues with impunity. In recent weeks, the Israeli security cabinet approved 34 new settlements in the West Bank, the largest number approved at one time by any Israeli Government. This represents a vast 78% increase in the total number of settlements. These are not isolated developments. They form part of an established pattern designed to create a new status quo in the occupied Palestinian territory. Let us call this what it is: these actions consistently contravene international law. I agree with the Deputy on this. We are not disagreeing on any of this. These actions threaten the viability of the two-state solution altogether, a solution that we absolutely support.”