EU accused of dragging its feet over ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements | European Union

The EU has been accused of dragging its feet on upholding international law on the eve of a long-awaited debate over banning trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday will discuss a possible ban on imports from the settlements in response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where a UN investigation found Israel committed genocide and escalated state-sponsored violence in the occupied West Bank that has killed at least 235 children.

But the 27 ministers are not expected to make trade-related decisions amid persistent divisions over how to respond to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.

A partial or total ban on imports from settlements is one of three options presented by the European Commission in an article reviewed by the Guardian. The other two options are high tariffs or an import licensing system that makes trade economically unsustainable. The leaked document was first reported by Euronews.

The article, written in careful and bureaucratic language, states that the options “could also have a significant impact on EU-Israel relations, given the upcoming elections” and emphasizes that the commission is taking into account the general elections to be held in Israel later this year.

Israelis will go to the polls on October 27, the first election test for Netanyahu since the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023. Under the EU-Israel agreement, goods coming from the occupied Palestinian territories (Golan Heights, Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem) are not entitled to benefit from the preferential trading conditions that apply to Israel.

At least 10 European member states, including Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, say the EU has an obligation to end trade with occupied territories following the international court of justice (ICJ) ruling in 2024 calling on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territory “as quickly as possible”. The decision stated that Israel had identified numerous violations of international law, including activities amounting to racial discrimination.

The report stated that states should “take steps to prevent trade or investment relationships that help maintain the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.”

This call to end trade with settlements is backed by more than 100 legal experts who wrote to the European Commission’s top trade and foreign policy officials this month confirming the EU’s “international legal obligation”.

Ignacio García Bercero, the commission’s former senior trade official who signed the letter, said: “The only way to ensure compliance with the ICJ’s opinion is to ban trade with illegal settlements. Any other option would not be effective in terms of Israel’s policy of compensating settlement producers for customs duties paid on their exports to the EU.”

A recent investigation by the NGO Global Echo found that Israeli exporters benefit from illegal tax breaks for settlement-grown products, while Israeli tax authorities allow misleading labels.

One in six shipments the NGO investigated contained agricultural products from settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and Syria’s Golan Heights, with at least 42% of them falsely labeled as grown in Israel.

However, the EU is not expected to take action soon due to the ongoing dispute over whether the ban on trade with illegal settlements will be made by qualified majority or unanimously.

Following Monday’s meeting, EU foreign ministers will not meet in a decision-making format until October. The maximum outcome on Monday could be a call by a simple majority of member states for a legislative proposal to end the illegal settlement trade, sources said.

Alberto Alemanno, professor of law at HEC Paris Business School, said: “Every month of delay not only postpones compliance, but also deepens the EU’s legal responsibility for maintaining trade with an illegal occupation.”

A senior EU diplomat said it had been an “uphill battle” to get the options paper, adding that there had been “pleasant cooperation” from the commission responsible for drafting EU laws.

Claudio Francavilla, deputy director of Human Rights Watch, said: “It is surprising that the ban is still presented as an ‘option’ even though it is the only measure in line with international law.”