clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

On the EU's obligation to ban settlement produce

January 23, 2014 at 4:59 am

The Palestinian human rights organization, Al Haq, recently published a position paper titled, ‘Feasting on the Occupation: Illegality of Settlement Produce and the Responsibility of EU Member States under International Law’. It provides a succinct debate about the economic repercussions for Palestinians and violation of international law by stakeholders involved in Israel’s illegal agricultural produce within the Occupied Palestinian Territories.


Al Haq’s position paper on settlement produce calls upon the European Union to strengthen temporary measures, such as the labelling of settlement products, in order to move towards a full ban of agricultural imports erroneously labelled as Israeli products. By delving into import and export details, the report highlights the EU’s reliance upon settlement produce and contrasts economic dependence with various norms of international law.

Establishing a ban on settlement produce would mark a significant milestone in Israel – EU relations. Contradicting EU and international law, member states indulge in verbal reprimands against the occupation only when diplomatic relations are less likely to be strained. Thus, Israeli aggression is still defended by the EU and rhetoric undermines Palestinian rights. The EU’s dependence on Israel creates other contradictions. Whilst regulations clearly stipulate the necessity of banning settlement produce on the grounds of commercial avenues providing Israel with financial means to oppress Palestinians, Israel’s largest trading partner turns a blind eye to the fact that the West Bank and the Jordan Valley are not recognised as Israeli territory.

It is a well-known fact that Israel lavishes financial compensation on settlers and foreign companies working in the occupied territories in order to strengthen the Israeli economy to the detriment of Palestinians. As the report states, 66% of settlement products are exported to the EU. Whilst the Fourth Protocol of the Association Agreement stipulates Israeli preference with regard to trade across the EU, it must be equally acknowledged that Israel’s manipulation of the protocol has been applied extra-territorially to include the OPTs.

The intentional false labelling of settlement produce directly violates consumer rights. The report states that according to EU regulations, ‘food information shall not be misleading as to the country of origin or place of provenance’. Therefore, labelling settlement produce as Israeli deliberately misleads consumers and warrants a prohibition from EU member states.

Whilst there is no direct legal infringement in settlement produce and marketing, international law still regards Israel’s settlements as illegal; that includes the political and economic activity conducted by the occupier aimed at marginalising the indigenous population. Settlement produce also violates Palestinians’ rights through the deprivation of self-determination, destruction of Palestinian property, appropriation of resources, including water and the violation of immoveable property. These aspects render Israel a violator of the prohibition of colonialism. In addition to Israel’s false justifications of land seizure, the pilfering of water resources is a calculated strategy designed to prevent the Palestinians from developing competitive farming techniques.

The report stresses the importance of third party states distancing themselves from Israel’s illegal commercial activities by adhering to the fundamentals of human rights law. Israel’s disregard for territorial boundaries needs to be addressed by the EU – an entire ban against settlement produce would challenge authorities to move beyond the justifications expressed in Israeli rhetoric.

The EU’s exhausted discourse in favour of human rights – applied sporadically and selectively according to the country in question, should veer towards a concrete formula aimed at discouraging companies from dealing with Israeli businesses operating in the OPTs, in line with existing international legal frameworks. An internationalist approach against Israel’s settlement enterprise would be effective in shifting focus to the Palestinians, if only international human rights bodies applied a constant and active condemnation of Israeli oppression, instead of the usual selective criteria pitting profit against human rights.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.