Ireland will regret its anti-Israel boycott

The Hill

10-07-2025

Ireland is on the verge of passing an incredibly discriminatory — and legally dangerous — piece of legislation: the so-called Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025.
This first-in-Europe measure would criminalize the importation of goods from Israeli businesses operating in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Framed by its supporters as a political statement, the bill is being pushed with rhetoric about 'genocidal activity,' invoking the language of demonization rather than diplomacy. But beyond the usual anti-Israel bias, this bill creates a very real and immediate legal risk — not for Israel, but for American companies and investors.
The U.S. has a clear and long-standing policy position: It opposes foreign government-led boycotts against Israel, including those targeting Israeli-controlled territories. Since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter signed the anti-boycott provisions of the Export Administration Act, every American administration and every Congress — Democrat and Republican — has upheld this principle. As Carter himself noted, our concern about foreign boycotts stemmed from both our special relationship with Israel and the broader economic, military and security needs of the U.S.
That bipartisan consensus was reaffirmed as recently as 2016, when President Barack Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which directs federal agencies to oppose boycott efforts and requires regular reporting on entities that participate in activities related to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Federal anti-boycott laws make it illegal for U.S. companies to comply with foreign government boycott requests targeting Israel. That means American firms that change their behavior in response to Ireland's new law — whether by canceling contracts, terminating suppliers or rerouting goods away from Israeli partners in the West Bank — could face serious penalties at home.
In addition to federal restrictions, more than 36 U.S. states have adopted laws that bar companies from receiving state contracts if they boycott Israel (or, in many cases, Israeli territories). Some laws, like that of Texas, even require vendors to certify that they are not boycotting Israel. Firms that comply with Ireland's law will risk contract termination, state debarment and enforcement actions from state attorneys general.
So the U.S. position is clear: It supports Israel. It does not support the movement to boycott, divest from or impose sanctions against Israel. Under federal law, U.S. firms are prohibited from refusing to do business with Israel, or furnishing boycott-related information, when those actions are taken at the request of a foreign government. Violations can result in steep civil penalties, loss of export privileges and, in egregious cases, criminal charges.
If Ireland's law impels a U.S. firm to terminate contracts, reroute goods or avoid Israeli entities in disputed areas, that would qualify as a reportable boycott action under federal law.
Beyond shielding American citizens from coercion and keeping government actors from entangling themselves in discriminatory practices, federal and state laws against anti-Israeli discrimination also serve a critical economic and national security function. Disrupting commerce with Israel — a close and reliable U.S. ally — risks destabilizing not only Israel's economy but also America's economy.
The economic partnership between the two countries is large and growing. Israel is America's 25th largest trading partner, with more than $37 billion in annual trade. The U.S. benefits directly from Israel's innovation sector, defense cooperation and strategic stability in the Middle East. Ireland's anti-Israel discrimination isn't just morally and legally wrong, but also also economically reckless, strategically self-defeating and, overall, a bad business decision for the U.S.
To align with Ireland and proceed along this discriminatory path would violate the fiduciary duties of loyalty and care that officers and directors owe their corporations. The duty of loyalty requires decision-makers to put the welfare and best interests of the company before their own personal interests and feelings, and the duty of care requires them to reasonably consider the impact of their decisions on the company's prospects. Any company that complies with Ireland's law would be blocked from doing business in a majority of the U.S. Losing money in the service of controversial or illegal ideological stances cannot be justified under any theory of good corporate governance.
Ironically, Ireland's attempt to isolate Israel may end up isolating Irish companies from U.S. markets. American businesses that comply with Ireland's law risk disqualification from government contracts, reputational damage in the U.S., and federal enforcement actions. And because U.S. anti-boycott law applies to all covered transactions, whether the action is direct or indirect, even internal company decisions based on Ireland's law may trigger liability.
U.S. companies that want to remain safe should firmly and clearly reject this effort from Ireland. U.S. law comes first, and discriminatory foreign laws will not dictate American business policy.
To the extent necessary, these businesses should also conduct a Foreign Law Compliance Audit, reviewing operations, internal directives, joint ventures, suppliers and distribution agreements that may be implicated by Ireland's ban, and flagging any decisions or actions that might be tied explicitly or implicitly to foreign legal pressure.
They should also track and report any foreign government requests to the Department of Commerce's Office of Antiboycott Compliance, as required. Companies must make sure to educate and train executives, board members, advisers and other stakeholders that anti-Israel divestment creates legal exposure, not safety.
As anti-Israel legislation spreads in Europe and beyond, U.S. firms need a unified strategy — one that respects federal law, preserves market access and resists political manipulation of trade. Failure to act now risks not just foreign market confusion but domestic enforcement, reputational blowback and potential criminal liability. The reward of unlawful discrimination is simply never worth the risk.
Mark Goldfeder is CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center and a law professor at Touro University. Anat Beck is a corporate law professor at Case Western Reserve University and a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School. Erielle Davidson is an associate at Holtzman Vogel and a legal fellow at the National Jewish Advocacy Center.