Anti-Israel demonstrators stand outside the Israeli embassy after Ireland has announced it will recognize a Palestinian state, in Dublin, Ireland, May 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Molly Darlington

Ireland‘s cabinet gave its formal backing on Tuesday to drafting legislation on restricting trade with Israeli communities in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements, but the bill is unlikely to be passed by parliament until later in the year.

While Ireland does very little trade with the settlements, Prime Minister Micheal Martin said it was a “symbolic move” that follows its official recognition last year of a Palestinian state, alongside a small number of other European countries.

The bill, which would ban the import of goods from the settlements but is unlikely to include services, will be considered by a parliamentary committee in the coming weeks, Foreign Minister Simon Harris said.

A final bill will then go through parliamentary scrutiny before the upper and lower houses vote on it, likely later this year.

“In many ways this is a small measure, but it is imperative on all countries to do all that we can to maximize the pressure and conditions to bring about a ceasefire,” Harris said, adding that he hoped other countries would bring in similar measures.

The move comes after Britain last week paused free trade talks with Israel and announced further sanctions against West Bank settlers.

The European Union also announced a review last week of a pact governing its political and economic ties with Israel, a step Ireland and Spain first proposed together over a year ago.

A bill limiting trade with Israeli settlements was first tabled in 2018 by an Irish independent lawmaker but blocked by the then government because the EU, not member nations, is responsible for the bloc’s trade policy.

However, the government late last year said that an advisory opinion by the United Nations’ highest court in July that Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories was illegal would allow it to move forward on the issue.

Israel rejected the ruling as “fundamentally wrong” and one-sided.