A bill currently before the lower house of the Irish parliament would make it a crime to import or sell items produced by Israeli businesses in territory acquired by Israel in the Six-Day War. Such legislation, unprecedented for any Western country, might have very real consequences. But, writes Eli Lake, those consequences could harm Ireland more than they harm Israel:

Because of Ireland’s low corporate tax rates, many of the world’s largest companies keep their wealth there. U.S. companies accounted for 67 percent of all foreign direct investment in the country in 2017, and Ireland is especially popular with America’s tech giants. Apple is Ireland’s largest company. Google, Microsoft, and Facebook are also in the top ten.

Which brings us back to Israel. A big reason why Israel’s economy has boomed [in the past two decades] is because America’s tech giants have set up branch offices and bought promising Israeli tech startups. The Irish legislation, if it becomes law, would force Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to choose between their Irish tax haven and their business in the Jewish state.

While the proposed law only targets the West Bank territories, not all of Israel, in practice it would be difficult to enforce that distinction. . . . It would probably violate the proposed law if Apple allowed an Israeli employee living in the West Bank to telecommute. The distinction becomes even thornier given that Ireland considers all of eastern Jerusalem to be “occupied territory.”

This would place U.S. companies in a bind. If they follow Irish law, they would either have to fire the telecommuting employee or have to forbid the employee from working from home. If they did that, however, the companies would be participating in a boycott not sanctioned by the U.S. government. And that . . . would in turn risk violating the anti-boycott sections of U.S. export regulations.

The negotiations that secured the release of Edan Alexander were conducted by the U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Adam Boehler, with reportedly little or no involvement from the Israelis. Amit Segal considers:

Does Edan’s release mean foreign-passport holders receive priority over those only with Israeli passports? He is, after all, is a dual American-Israeli citizen who grew up in New Jersey. While it may not be the intended message, many will likely interpret the deal as such: foreign-passport holders are worth more. In a country where many citizens are already obtaining second passports, encouraging even more to do so is unwise, to say the least.

Another bad look for Israel: Washington is freeing Edan, not Jerusalem. . . .

Then there’s the question of the Qatari jumbo jet. At this point we can only speculate, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that as Hamas is set to release a hostage, Trump is also accepting a super luxury jumbo jet from Qatar worth around $400 million. Are the two connected?

Still, Segal reminds us that in one, crucial way, this deal is superior to those that preceded it:

The fact that Hamas appears to be freeing a hostage for nothing in return is indeed a victory. Don’t forget: in February, in exchange for the bodies of four hostages, Israel released over 600 Palestinian prisoners, not to mention the Palestinian terrorists—many of whom have Jewish blood on their hands—released in other deals during this war.

As serious as the concerns Segal and others have raised are, that last point makes me think that some of the handwringing about the deal by other commentators is exaggerated. The coming IDF offensive—tanks have been massing on the edge of Gaza in recent days—the many weeks during which supplies haven’t entered the Strip, and Israel’s declared plans not to allow Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian aid cannot but have made the jihadists more pliable.

And the deal was made on a schedule set by Israel, which said that it would embark on a full-bore offensive at the end of the week if the hostages aren’t released. Moreover, in the parameters Hamas has set forth until now, Alexander, a male soldier, would have been among the last of the hostages to be exchanged.

What of the claim that President Trump has achieved what Prime Minister Netanyahu couldn’t? Again, there is some truth here. But it’s worth noting that the Hostages Forum—a group representing most of the hostages’ families, consistently critical of Netanyahu, and supported by a broad swath of Israelis—has since at least January been demanding a deal where all the hostages are freed at once. (This demand is an understandable reaction to the sadistic games Hamas played with the weekly releases earlier this year and in the fall of 2023.) So Trump let them down too.

In fact, Trump previously promised that “all hell would break loose” if all hostages weren’t released. Neither has happened, so I’m not sure if Trump looks all that much stronger than Netanyahu.

My takeaway, though, isn’t a defense or criticism of either leader, but simply a cautionary note: let’s not jump to conclusions quite yet.