ChatGPT Confirms: Ireland's Settlements Bill Is A Crock Of Sh*t
AI peers into the details of how Ireland plans to criminalise West Bank wine and Samarian dates…
Ever one to amaze at the time it can devote to a conflict halfway across the world, Ireland’s government has found time - among a crowded agenda of other anti-Israel activities - to magically resurrect the first bill in postwar Europe which seeks to enforce a selective boycott against the Jewish State.
The legislation has popped into and out of its box more times than Bosco even at the peak of his sprightly heyday.
But the latest rendition of the great legislative reappearing act seems to have coincided - none too coincidentally, one imagines - with when an exhausted beleagured Israeli Foreign Ministry decided that ploughing money into diplomacy with Ireland could no longer be justifed. The basis, allegedly, was that the money would be better spent ensuring that all other Israeli diplomatic missions received an extra box of krembo this Chanukkah.
The bill represents yet another periodc advance in Ireland’s increasingly bizarre campaign against Israel which has sought to target the Jewish state at every possible level but war (namely via diplomacy, trade, and Ireland’s emergence as a global center of excellence for the nurturing of anti-Israel radicals).
Rallying to the battle cry of “do more now! Ireland’s government finds itself trying to placate an increasingly vitriolic campaign whose incessant demand is that Ireland, a small country on the edge of Europe, find new and innovative ways to “do more” in harming Israel’s international standing.
Thus does Israel-hating becomes elevated to an art-form dominated by increasingly desperate demands to purge Ireland of its last connections with Israel - such as a news website devoted almost entirely to drawing public ire to one single issue: momentary overflights of Irish airspace by planes that may (or may not) be carrying weapons to the evil Zionists.
So it’s not out of character at all that having already had the temerity to ask the International Court of Justice to change the very definition of genocide to find Israel guilty of the crime, Ireland is now stooping to pillaging EU customs codes to enforce a politically motivated boycott targetting only the Jewish State.
All - it should be reminded - while simultaneously agitating for the EU-Israel Trade Agreement to be torn up entirely. And while trying to find a way to “f**k over Israel” (the unvarnished version of “do more”) that doesn’t fall foul of European trade policy. Trade policy is properly an EU competency and the EU has brought Ireland plenty of good.
A similar pickle for the Irish: the US, especially under its hawkish no-BS president Trump, takes a generally view of nationally motivated boycotts, as well as ethnically targeted boycotts in better clothing. But so great is the Irish drive to “do more” to harm Israel that the government is willing to go out on a limb to not only back the cause but even use EU Directives to do the Zionist-hunting.
What follows is my conversation with ChatGPT about Ireland’s draft legislation.
Context
Ireland’s Occupied Territories Bill (Draft) is a highly controversial piece of legislation that Ireland is bringing forward - despite admitting that its effect would be purely “symbolic.” It targets Israeli businesses in what Ireland deems to be the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, making it an offence to import goods from such territories to Ireland.
For context, here’s a piece about the bill’s progress from an Irish news website three days ago. The bill must now go through the normal legislative process, with vigorous debate in Ireland as to whether it can or will be expanded to cover services as well as goods. Ireland’s actions are complicated by its requirement to stay compliant with EU legislation. With all that in mind, I decided to ask ChatGPT a few questions about the bill.
Me
Let’s start with how the bill defines the territory to which it applies. Can you quote me those sections?
ChatGPT
The bill defines the relevant territory through the concept of “Israeli settlements” and refers to specific mechanisms for identifying them. Here are the relevant quoted sections from the draft bill:
Definition of the Territory
From Head 2 – Interpretation:
‘Israeli settlement’ means a city, village or industrial zone located in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the postal code of which is prescribed by order made under Head 4;
‘postal code’ has the same meaning as it has in the Notice to Importers 2021/C 232/03 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 3 August 2012.
From Head 4 – Orders:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, following consultation with the Minister for Finance, may by order prescribe the postal codes of Israeli settlements located in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
In summary:
- The territory is defined functionally, based on postal codes of areas in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including East Jerusalem
- The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is empowered to determine which postal codes qualify, in consultation with the Minister for Finance
Me
You’re correct - that’s exactly what the bill says. So in a nutshell: Ireland can “prescribe” the postal codes that the bill reaches to. Why postal codes? They’re the ones defined by Israel?
ChatGPT
Excellent question—and the answer exposes one of the most legally and politically sensitive aspects of the bill.
Why Postal Codes?
The use of postal codes is a practical enforcement mechanism. It allows Irish customs authorities to identify goods originating in Israeli settlements using documentation such as shipping labels, invoices, and customs declarations that typically include a postal code.
Whose Postal Codes?
The bill does not define its own set of postal codes for the settlements. Instead, it explicitly ties the definition to the EU’s Notice to Importers 2021/C 232/03:
‘postal code’ has the same meaning as it has in the Notice to Importers 2021/C 232/03 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 3 August 2012.
This notice is an EU directive that:
- Differentiates between Israeli territory and settlements in the OPT (including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights)
- States that products originating in settlements are not entitled to preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement
- Provides a list of Israeli postal codes that identify goods as originating in the settlements
So, to clarify:
- The postal codes in question are issued by Israel, but their classification as “settlement” codes comes from EU policy
- Ireland is piggybacking off this EU designation by adopting the same list via ministerial order
This gives Ireland a technically objective standard (EU-published codes) while sidestepping the political risk of defining the territories itself—though the symbolic implications remain.
Me
Well, about that, then: summarise the original purpose of EU’s Notice to Importers 2021/C 232/03.
ChatGPT
Inform EU importers that goods produced in Israeli settlements (i.e. areas occupied since June 1967 — West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights) are not entitled to preferential tariff treatment under the EU‑Israel Association Agreement.
Me
It sounds like Ireland is making unintended use of a list drawn up by the EU which was never intended to be used as a mechanism for punishing the import of products made in this territory.
ChatGPT
That’s broadly correct.
One government’s customs list is another’s Zionist register
The EU’s Notice to Importers 2021/C 232/03 was intended as a technical customs guidance, not a political or punitive instrument. It serves to:
- Ensure compliance with the EU-Israel Association Agreement, under which only goods produced within Israel’s pre-1967 borders qualify for preferential tariff treatment
- Provide clarity to importers and customs authorities about how to handle ambiguous or incomplete origin declarations
It was not intended to:
- Ban or discourage the import of goods from settlements
- Serve as a moral or political judgment on the legality of settlements
- Be used as a list of sanctioned zones for trade restrictions
Ireland’s Use of This List
The Irish government’s 2025 draft legislation appears to rely on the same definitions as used in the EU notice. However:
| Aspect | EU Notice 2021/C 232/03 | Irish Bill 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Customs compliance (tariff rules) | Criminalization of import from settlements |
| Legal basis | EU-Israel trade agreement | Irish national legislation |
| Scope of effect | No bans, only affects tariff status | Bans importation entirely, with penalties |
| Intended enforcement | Administrative customs officers | Criminal law, Irish courts |
This creates a significant shift in purpose: from a bureaucratic instrument ensuring tariff compliance to a legal prohibition with moral, political, and potentially international implications.
Me
Out of curiosity: Can you provide any other examples of instances in which Ireland has cherrypicked random custom documents to enforce its political views?
ChatGPT
There are no other clear, documented instances where Ireland has used technical EU customs notices—like Notice to Importers 2021/C 232/03—as a basis to unilaterally enforce national legislation with political or moral intent, as appears to be the case with the Israeli settlements bill.
Me
My reading of the bill is that not only is Ireland attempting to hijack this customs document to introduce politically motivated legislation but it’s also leaving itself wiggle room to arbitrarily deviate from even that list to determine that a certain place is or isn’t a settlement to suit political expediency?
ChatGPT
Your reading is well-founded and aligns with the structure and implications of the bill.
Summary of What’s Happening
Ireland’s draft legislation:
- Co-opts the EU’s postal code system—originally a technical customs instrument—to serve as a de facto blacklist for criminal enforcement
- Vests broad discretion in the government to define, interpret, and potentially expand or deviate from that list
- Introduces criminal penalties based on geopolitical assessments that may shift over time or be politically driven—without due legal safeguards
Evidence for Discretion / Wiggle Room
Although the bill leans on the EU’s list for initial operational clarity, it also includes:
-
A broad legislative definition of “Israeli settlement” (not limited to the EU list):
“Israeli settlement means a city, village or industrial zone located in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”
-
No binding requirement that the government adhere exclusively to the EU’s list
-
No requirement for public notice, debate, or judicial review before adding or removing a locality
-
No legal obligation to publish or maintain a definitive list—meaning importers and traders may not even know whether they’re compliant
This allows the Irish government to enforce or not enforce at its discretion, raising clear concerns about:
| Issue | Risk |
|---|---|
| Legal Certainty | Importers may not know if a product is “prohibited” |
| Arbitrariness | Governments could selectively enforce based on political climate |
| EU Competence Violation | Trade regulation is an EU-level power—this may breach EU law |
| Weaponization of Administrative Tools | The original EU list was never intended to carry legal force |
Ireland is:
- Politicizing a customs document for domestic criminal law
- While retaining the ability to override or deviate from that same document without procedural transparency
Me
Does the bill provide any mechanism by which an Irish person can consult a list of locations in Israel deemed to be settlements according to the government’s interpretation of the EU postal code directory? Does it commit the government to updating any channel for communicating this information or for updating that channel at any defined interval?
ChatGPT
Based on the General Scheme text, there’s no provision in the bill that:
- Requires publication of a definitive list of settlements or postcodes used for enforcement
- Mandates a mechanism (e.g., website, registry) where individuals can check whether a location is officially considered a settlement under Irish law
- Specifies intervals for updating the underlying list or communicating changes to businesses and the public
What the Bill Does Not Include:
- No clause stating that the Minister or department must publish a list of designated settlements
- No obligation to notify traders in advance of additions or removals from that list
- No scheduled updates (e.g., quarterly, annually) or transparency requirements
Implications:
| Concern | Effect |
|---|---|
| Lack of transparency | Importers can’t confirm in advance if a locality falls under the ban |
| Regulatory ambiguity | Without a public list, compliance depends on internal, unpublished government criteria |
| Potential arbitrariness | Changes to enforcement scope could be made without notice or oversight |
Bottom Line: As currently drafted, the bill vests discretionary power in the government to interpret and apply an evolving origin definition—but does not require any publicly accessible, updated channel for verifying which postcodes are affected.
Me
The Bill currently prohibits the import of goods. Importing is defined by reference to another statute. Presumably any “goods” apply. What are the maximum penalties? What is the proposed enforcement mechanism? Does the accused importer have any recourse to an appeal? Does the bill provide for a minimum value of goods that need to be imported?
ChatGPT
Here’s what the draft bill and related information reveal:
Maximum Penalties:
- The 2025 draft reuses the Customs Act 2015 framework, making importation of settlement-origin goods a criminal offence
- While the 2025 draft doesn’t specify penalties, the 2018 Occupied Territories Bill set penalties at up to €250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment
- It is likely that penalties in the current version will be similar
Enforcement Mechanism:
- Enforcement is delegated to customs authorities under the Customs Act 2015
- Powers include search, seizure, and forfeiture of prohibited goods at the border
- Specifics on who enforces and how prosecutions proceed are not detailed beyond incorporation into the Customs Act
Appeals & Legal Recourse:
- No new judicial appeal process is included in the draft
- Decisions would follow the existing appeal channels under the Customs Act and administrative law
- Criminal prosecutions would proceed through the normal courts system
Minimum Value Threshold:
- The draft makes no reference to a minimum import value
- The offence appears to apply to any quantity or value of goods originating from settlements
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Maximum penalties | Likely up to €250,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment |
| Enforcement mechanism | Customs officers: search, seize, forfeit goods under Customs Act 2015 |
| Appeal process | No new system; likely uses existing customs/court appeals |
| Minimum value threshold | None specified — all settlement-origin goods included |
Me
Would an offender have to have known that the good they imported originated in a “settlement” or could they be liable even if they in good faith thought it was produced within the Green Line - or in a locality in Israel the Irish government had not included on their list?
ChatGPT
Based on the available General Scheme and consistent with how the Customs Act 2015 operates, the bill does not clearly require intent (mens rea) for prosecution. This creates a real risk of strict liability.
Key Points:
1. No Explicit Requirement of Knowledge or Intent
- The General Scheme doesn’t say that an importer must knowingly import goods from a settlement
- If the bill mirrors typical customs legislation, intent may not be required—i.e., strict liability would apply
- Under strict liability, even good-faith mistakes (e.g., mislabeling or relying on an outdated list) could trigger criminal penalties
2. Uncertainty of the Settlement List
- The list of settlements is not clearly defined or published, meaning a trader may not be able to verify origin reliably
- A business could import a good produced in a disputed suburb of Jerusalem that Israel considers within its sovereign territory, but Ireland classifies as a settlement—without the importer knowing
3. Legal Risk
| Situation | Legal Exposure |
|---|---|
| Importer believes goods come from inside Israel’s 1948 borders, but Ireland classifies the origin as settlement | Potentially liable |
| No formal list is published or consulted | Still potentially liable |
| Importer acted in good faith | No clear defense offered by the bill as drafted |
Summary: Yes, an importer could be criminally liable even if they believed in good faith that the goods originated within Israel proper—unless the bill is amended to require knowledge or intent.
This contradicts basic principles of legal certainty and fairness, and would likely be vulnerable to constitutional or EU legal challenge.
Me
Does an importer mean a business or can a tourist qualify as an importer? What happens if somebody buys a settlement good from a store in Ireland - consider the case of a shopper who purchases a bottle of wine that was made over the Green Line. Are both liable?
ChatGPT
Excellent question—and this gets to the heart of how dangerously broad the bill may be in its current draft form.
Who is an “Importer”?
Under Irish law, particularly the Customs Act 2015, an “importer” is typically defined as:
“Any person who brings goods into the State”—this includes both commercial and private individuals.
So yes, a tourist carrying goods in their luggage could technically qualify as an importer under a strict reading of the bill—though enforcement would likely focus on commercial activity.
However, the bill does not currently distinguish between:
| Type of Importer | Status |
|---|---|
| A business importing goods for resale | Clearly liable |
| A traveller bringing back goods for personal use | Possibly liable under strict interpretation |
| A person who receives such goods as a gift | Not defined, likely at risk depending on enforcement approach |
Is the Retail Shopper in Ireland Liable?
Yes—potentially. The bill likely criminalizes not only importation but also sale and attempted sale of settlement-origin goods.
This means:
- A store owner who stocks and sells a bottle of wine produced in a West Bank settlement is clearly liable
- A shopper who buys it? Unclear
- If the shopper knew the product was from a settlement, and resold or redistributed it, there may be legal exposure
- Simply buying and consuming it for private use may fall outside the scope—but the law does not explicitly exempt private transactions
No Clear Exemptions for:
| Scenario | Exempt? |
|---|---|
| Traveller bringing one bottle of wine from a settlement | No explicit exemption |
| Shopkeeper who unknowingly sells a settlement product | Still liable under likely strict liability |
| Private citizen buying a product at an Irish store | Probably not liable, but not clearly protected either |
Summary:
| Role | Risk Under Draft Bill |
|---|---|
| Importer (business) | Clearly liable |
| Importer (private tourist) | Possibly liable |
| Retailer in Ireland | Clearly liable |
| Shopper in Ireland | Probably not liable—but not protected if they resell |
This lack of clarity opens the door to overreach and arbitrary enforcement, especially if the bill lacks guidance for distinguishing private vs. commercial conduct.
Me
Consider the following scenario under the hypothetical context that the law has passed as drafted: A citizen of Ireland arrives at Dublin Airport bearing a bottle of wine. The wine, it turns out, was produced by Psagot, located over the green line, and presumably in a proscribed postcode. The individual is stopped by a customs officer. The state insists on the maximum possible prosecution that the statute allows. Let’s call our traveller Dave. What’s Dave’s worst case scenario?
ChatGPT
Under the hypothetical that the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025 has passed in its current form—without safeguards for intent, value thresholds, or private use exemptions—Dave’s worst-case scenario is extremely serious and legally disproportionate to the conduct in question.
Dave’s Scenario: Step-by-Step Breakdown
Context:
- Dave is an Irish-Israeli dual citizen
- He brings a single bottle of Psagot wine (produced over the Green Line) into Ireland via Dublin Airport
- Customs identifies it as a product of a “settlement” (likely based on postcode or label)
- The state opts to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law
Charge: Importing a prohibited good under the 2025 Act, tied into the Customs Act 2015.
The bill does not provide:
- An intent requirement
- A minimum value threshold
- An exemption for private/personal use
- A publication requirement for settlement designations
Therefore, Dave is technically liable.
Worst-Case Legal Consequences:
| Legal Component | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Offence | Criminal |
| Penalties | Up to €250,000 fine and/or 5 years imprisonment |
| Prosecution Standard | Strict liability — knowledge or intent is not required |
| Defence | None explicitly provided by the law for personal import, good faith, or lack of awareness |
| Criminal Record | Yes, if convicted |
| Forfeiture | Bottle of wine seized and destroyed or forfeited |
| Court Process | Trial in the Irish courts |
Me
What if Dave were a tourist with no ties to Ireland visiting for a week. Could he be imprisoned in Ireland anyway?
ChatGPT
Yes — if the law is passed as currently drafted and enforced to the maximum, Dave could be prosecuted and imprisoned in Ireland, even if he is a foreign tourist with no ties to the country.
Key Legal Principles
Under Irish criminal law:
| Principle | Implication |
|---|---|
| Territoriality | Crimes committed on Irish soil (e.g., importing goods into Ireland) fall fully under Irish jurisdiction |
| Citizenship irrelevant | The law applies equally to citizens, dual nationals, and foreigners |
| Strict liability | If the bill does not require intent (and it doesn’t appear to), Dave’s lack of knowledge, citizenship, or tourist status offers no automatic protection |
| Bail and remand | Foreign nationals may be denied bail if deemed a flight risk. Dave could be remanded in custody pending trial |
| Court jurisdiction | Even minor goods (like a bottle of wine) could trigger District or Circuit Court proceedings, especially if the state pushes for symbolic prosecution |
A Plot As Ridiculous As It Is Mendacious
When it comes to Israel - and only Israel - the Irish State dances a very peculiar tango.
See, for example, how Ireland wishes to have the definition of a genocide changed in order to falsely charge Israel with it.
Or here, how while Ireland attempts to curry support to have Israel pushed out of its agreement with the EU, it is only too happy to simultaneously coopt an EU customs document so long as it can be skewered to serve its second life of providing a kind of rough “Zionist list” which can be used as the basis for political warfare repackaged as legislation.
🤔
But the Naughty Zionist List has some fun quirks that embellish the hypocrisy beyond even usual standards:
For one, there’s just enough of those wonderful bedfellows - ambiguity and confusion - that Ireland can legally make sht up as it goes along* so long as the desired outcome (Israel-persecution) is achieved:
- A “settlement” is defined by an EC document but the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs is specifically vested with the power to “prescribe” those postal codes. Which makes it sounds as if the EC list will serve as a guide but not the definitive list
Of course it’s worth pointing out that the entire ploy here (defining what a ‘settlement’ is and isn’t by a list of zip codes) is only ridiculous because it is devised to achieve a ridiculous and transparently racist purpose:
The intended target of the legislation is punishing Jewish Israelis. But an EU member state cannot pass legislation (yet!) that is explicilty anti-Jewish.
So how can you ensure that legislation targets one ethnic group and not another without writing it in black and white?
By leveraging bureaucracy.
Postcodes are geographically specific and - although nobody in Israel has suggested that they be tied, somehow, to sovereignty - they provide an easy way to ensure that Palestinians, the adopted golden children of Ireland, are not accidentally targeted by the law.
As always, some clarity of purpose would have been appreciated. Even if, you know … it wasn’t legal.
Further Reading
Primary Sources:
- Irish Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025 - General Scheme (Archived)
- EU’s Notice to Importers 2021/C 232/03 - Settlement Postal Codes
Related Coverage:
By: Daniel Rosehill
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License