Prominent US politicians calls Occupied Territories Bill ‘extreme antisemitic hate'
US
politicians have warned the
Government
that enacting the
Occupied Territories Bill
would be harmful for
Ireland
.
The proposed bill is expected to be put before the Dáil in the autumn. The legislation would prohibit trading with companies operating in illegal settlements in the West Bank and other occupied territories.
At least 10 members of Congress have shared their criticisms of the bill on X in what would appear to be a concerted campaign.
They were joined by the US ambassador to Israel Mick Huckabee who posted on X: 'Did the Irish fall into a vat of Guinness & propose something so stupid that it would be attributed to act of diplomatic intoxication? It will harm Arabs as much as Israelis. Sober up Ireland! Call
@IsraelMFA
& say you're sorry!'
[
Government effort to ban occupied territories trade gets EU boost
Opens in new window
]
Lisa McClain, the chair of the House Republicans, stated that 'any legislation boycotting, divesting, or sanctioning Israel would be a huge mistake for Ireland.
'This type of extreme anti-Semitic hate is unacceptable and should be rejected.'
On X, Rep McClain linked to an article from The Hill website which warned that the passing of bill would create a 'real and immediate legal risk not for Israel, but for American companies and investors'.
The article, authored by three legal academics, Mark Goldfeder, Anat Beck and Erielle Davidson, outlines that the United States has had a long-standing policy going back to 1977 that US companies will not be allowed to participate in any boycott of Israel.
'Federal anti-boycott laws make it illegal for US companies to comply with foreign government boycott requests targeting Israel,' it says.
'That means American firms that change their behaviour in response to Ireland's new law – whether by cancelling contracts, terminating suppliers or rerouting goods away from Israeli partners in the West Bank – could face serious penalties at home.'
More than 36 US states have adopted laws that bar companies from receiving state contracts if they boycott Israel, it said .
Well-known US senator Lindsey Graham posted: I hope that Ireland will reconsider their efforts to economically isolate Israel, as they are in a fight for their very existence. I do not believe these efforts would be well received in the United States and they certainly would not go unnoticed.'
Senator Rick Scott also linked to The Hill article: 'This foolish move not only wrongfully targets Israel & the Jewish Community, but also harms American businesses. They should think twice about the message they're sending by passing this bill, which complicates our economic relationship & targets our ally.'
This foolish move not only wrongfully targets Israel & the Jewish Community, but also harms American businesses. They should think twice about the message they're sending by passing this bill, which complicates our economic relationship & targets our ally.
Other members of congress who have warned Ireland about the consequences of the problem including congress members Mike Lawler, Mike Crapo, Peter Stauber and Claudia Tenny among a growing number of US politicians, most of them Republican, who have vocally opposed the Occupied Territories Bill
Two weeks ago US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Senator Jim Risch said the Occupied Territories Bill 'will only lead to self-inflicted economic suffering' for the State.
Writing on X, the veteran Republican senator for Idaho said: 'Ireland, while often a valuable US partner, is on a hateful, anti-Semitic path that will only lead to self-inflicted economic suffering.
His comments were rejected by Taoiseach Micheál Martin.
'I would reject any assertion that this is anti-Semitic. I'm appalled of that assertion and that's something we're going to correct,' he said in response to Senator Risch's comments.
'We will work on our economic interests. We'll work to explain our position to interlocutors in the US and to the US administration.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Seanad election returning officer says he had no reason to doubt accuracy of count result
A returning officer who refused a former Seanad election candidate's request for a full recount during the recent vote has told the High Court he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the count. Martin Groves, the recently retired clerk of the Seanad, said the narrow margin of votes separating Cllr Angela Feeney and the final candidate elected to the Agricultural Panel was not grounds in and of itself to direct a full recount of votes. Ms Feeney, a Labour Party councillor in Kildare, was eliminated on the 23rd count by a margin of 0.116, or one-ninth, of a ballot, missing out on the final seat to Fine Gael's Maria Byrne in January's election. Each valid Seanad ballot paper is deemed to have a value of 1,000 votes. The total valid poll for the 11-seat Agricultural Panel was 95,667 votes. READ MORE Ms Feeney, a member of Labour's central council and former head of Technological University Dublin's school of languages, law and social sciences, has brought a High Court petition challenging the conduct of vote counting for the panel. She claims there should have been a full recount of the ballots , rather than simply a repeat of the 23rd count. She wants the election result overturned and a recount ordered. Giving evidence at the hearing of the action, Mr Groves said legislation allows returning officers conducting Seanad election counts discretion to direct full recounts in circumstances where they are not satisfied with the accuracy of the count. Mr Groves said his discretion to direct a full recount of votes is restrained by those circumstances. He said a narrow margin separating candidates was not a reason in and of itself to order a full recount. During the count, after considering Ms Feeney's request for a full recount, Mr Groves said he concluded he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the count, noting that no errors were uncovered following two partial recounts. [ Boy (4) died of severe brain injury after choking on cocktail sausage, inquest hears Opens in new window ] He said there were many potential circumstances where he would begin to doubt the accuracy of a count. On Thursday, Eoin O'Malley, a political scientist and professor at Dublin City University, told the court he was 'surprised' that Ms Feeney was not granted a recount. Mr O'Malley, an expert witness called by the Feeney side, said he did not have expertise or experience with Seanad election counts, but had experience of observing general election counts. He agreed with Conor Power SC, for Ms Feeney, that recounts in election counts with tight margins can lead to greater satisfaction with the outcome. Mr O'Malley said he believed part of the reason for the granting of recounts in those circumstances is to satisfy all candidates that the count has been conducted fairly and properly. [ Man operating at 'highest possible level' of drug-dealing network jailed for 15 years Opens in new window ] In this case, he said it would have been better for democracy and the electoral process had a recount been granted. He noted it would have been quicker and cheaper than pursuing the issue through the courts. He said he believed that granting Ms Feeney the recount could have satisfied the candidate that there were no errors in the count. The trial, before Mr Justice Míchéal O'Higgins, continues.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Donald Trump says Coca-Cola will use cane sugar in US production of Coke
US President Donald Trump said Coca-Cola had agreed to sweeten its signature soft drink with cane sugar in the US, in what could represent a big shift from its decades-long use of high fructose corn syrup. In a social media post on Wednesday, the US president said he had been speaking to Coca-Cola about 'using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the US, and they have agreed to do so'. He hailed it as a 'good move' by the Atlanta-based company, adding: 'You'll see. It's just better.' Coca-Cola already uses cane sugar in Coke distributed in the European Union, including in Ireland. Mr Trump's unexpected announcement inserted the White House into a long-running debate about the effects on health of different types of sugar – and has the potential to delight or alienate farmers in regions of the country where he has strong support. READ MORE Neither Mr Trump nor Coca-Cola addressed questions about the shift late on Wednesday, including how Coca-Cola would source the volumes of cane sugar it would need or whether any cane-based cola would replace or complement current drink ingredients. Coca-Cola said: 'We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca-Cola brand. More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca-Cola product range will be shared soon.' While Coke's plans remained vague, Mr Trump's statement rippled through the beverage industry. Rival soft-drink maker PepsiCo was asked about it in an earnings call on Thursday morning. 'We're following the consumer,' Ramon Laguarta, Pepsi's chief executive, told analysts. 'If the consumer is telling us that they prefer products that have sugar and they prefer products that have natural ingredients, we will give the consumer products that have sugar and have natural ingredients.' US-produced Coca-Cola uses high fructose corn syrup, a highly processed sweetener whose effects on health in comparison with other forms of added sugars has long been a source of controversy. High fructose corn syrup is derived from corn, whose base of production is in midwestern farm states such as Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska in rural counties that largely voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election. US sugar cane is principally grown in the warm Gulf Coast states of Florida and Louisiana, while additional cane sugar is imported under a tariff quota system. Shares of Archer Daniels Midland and Ingredion, two of the largest publicly traded corn processors, respectively plunged 6.3 per cent and 8.9 per cent in after-hours trading on Wednesday, but had pared most of their losses after Wall Street reopened on Thursday. Coke shares were up 0.8 per cent. John Bode, chief executive of the Corn Refiners Association, said: 'Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit.' Coke's bottlers used cane sugar in US production until the 1980s and continue to use it in most foreign production, including in Mexico, which has resulted in so-called Mexican Coke being favoured by some US consumers. Its special Kosher for Passover variation, known for its yellow tops, is also coveted by some consumers because it too uses sugar rather than corn syrup. In a social media post, Coca-Cola said corn syrup was safe and had roughly the same calories as table sugar. 'The name sounds complex, but high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – which we use to sweeten some of our beverages – is actually just a sweetener made from corn.' Mr Trump's announcement comes as his health secretary Robert Kennedy Jnr pursues a broader crackdown on highly processed foods. Earlier this week, the White House announced dozens of ice cream companies, representing more than 90 per cent of the ice cream volume sold in the US, had pledged to stop using certified artificial colours in their frozen dairy products. While Mr Kennedy has attacked high fructose corn syrup, he has also taken an aggressive line against sugar in general. At an event earlier this year, he declared 'sugar is poison', not qualifying whether it came from corn, cane or another crop. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Behind Enemy Lines - Frank McNally on a little piece of Cork that is forever Tipperary
In darkest Cork, about halfway between Mallow and Macroom, is a mysterious hamlet whose name suggests the locals may have divided loyalties in this weekend's All-Ireland Hurling final. New Tipperary, as it's known, is located 60 kilometres from the nearest border with Old Tipperary. And if it was it an attempted colonisation project bv exiles from the latter, it seems to have failed. A mere curiosity now, the name's origins appear lost to memory. Not even Logainm, the national placename database, seems to know how it derived My suspicion, however, is that it has something to do with one Arthur Smith Barry (1843 – 1925), a landlord and politician who died 100 years in February, after a strife-filled career that straddled both these Munster counties, of which he had inherited 22,000 acres. Born in England to an Irish father, Smith Barry also graduated to a political career, becoming MP for Cork in 1867. He was a Liberal in the party-political sense, and in many ways a progressive: supporting extension of the franchise, for example, and voting for disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. Then the Irish Land War broke out, unleashing his inner conservatism and the energies that provoked Archbishop Croke, of GAA fame, to call him an 'aggressive busybody'. READ MORE The fate of Charles Boycott, land agent for Lord Erne in Mayo, made a deep impression on Smith Barry. Ostracised by locals, Boycott had to import 50 Orangemen from Cavan and Monaghan to save his harvest in 1880, under the protection of 1,000 police officers and at the cost of £10,000 (or about 20 times the crops' value). A broken man, he quit Ireland soon afterwards, having given his name to the language. As the popularity of the boycotting tactic spread in subsequent years, Smith Barry was determined to defeat it with improved organisation, shrewder tactics, and the liberal use of lawyers. Hence the Cork Defence Union, which he set up in 1885. This involved forming what the Dictionary of Irish Biography calls 'flying columns': not of mobile gunmen as would feature in a Cork of later decades, but of labourers and machinery, a sort of mercenary meitheal to harvest the crops of those boycotted. Its work extended to guaranteeing sales outlets. This too proved surprisingly effective. In the winter of 1885-86, according to the DIB, the Cork Defence Union 'took on, and forced a draw with' the South of Ireland Cattle Dealers Association, a livestock branch of nationalism. A weekly meeting of the CDU in September 1886, as reported by The Irish Times, sounded a self-congratulatory note. At the recent Bantry Fair, it was noted, a union member had bought 27 cattle, 'some of which bore evidence of the inhuman conduct of the 'moonlighters" in the west of Ireland, being minus their tails', and successfully placed them on his farm. Reports were also received from several districts that, thanks to the effects of the mobile labour units, 'local men had returned to their work, and [were assisting] men of the union in saving crops'. That was the same year nationalists launched the Plan of Campaign, under which tenants would seek reduced rents after bad harvests, failing which they would withhold rent altogether, diverting the money into a central campaign fund. One of Smith Barry's other big battles of the late 1880s involved supporting a fellow Cork landlord, Charles Ponsonby, against this plan. First, he bankrolled his resistance. Then, when Ponsonby was ready to accept a deal that would have collapsed local land values, Smith Barry worked with the Irish chief secretary to thwart it, before leading a syndicate that bought the estate. But it so happened that Smith Barry also owned the town of Tipperary, or at least the land it was on. And at the height of the dispute in Cork, the Tipp tenants withheld their rents in sympathy. Led by politician and journalist William O'Brien, they then attempted to set up a rival town on the outskirts of the original, to be called New Tipperary. The project went as far as the opening, in April 1890, of a row of shops named William O'Brien Arcade, housing evicted traders. It didn't last. The Leeside landlord saw that off too, and for O'Brien and his supporters, it proved an expensive debacle. In the meantime, however, it must also have spawned a New Tipperary in Cork. If only nominal, this is surely a vestige of the 1890 dispute, reciprocating the cross-border support in a rare case of shared intimacy between the counties. Smith-Barry ended up on the wrong side of Irish history, of course. He also lived just long enough to witness the change. Fifty years after that, part of his main Cork property became the Fota Island Wildlife Park. Although a first-class cricketer in his prime, he was probably never much of a hurling fan. So he would have been indifferent to seeing one half of a traditional Tipperary prayer answered this weekend. ie: 'Cork bet'. On the other hand, he might have had at least a passing interest in second part: 'and the hay saved'.
