Criticism of the EU’s trade relations with Israel

Last month, members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Palestine (DPAL) called upon the EU to suspend its association agreement with Israel after visiting the occupied West Bank and witnessing the human rights violations inflicted upon Palestinians. One minor yet influential departure from the usual generic statements is the delegation’s experience of a sliver of the colonial violence meted out daily by Israel.

In their statement, published by the Wafa news agency, the delegation describes being “forced to take cover in a Palestinian shop as the Israeli army moved with lethal force against Palestinian residents using tear gas, stun grenades and live fire.” This episode occurred in Hebron, which the delegation described as “a microcosm of how the Israeli occupation manifests in practice, with a minority of settlers holding hostage a majority of Palestinians.”

The EU-Israel Association Agreement, which came into force in 2000, which the delegation has urged the EU to suspend, facilitates and prioritises Israel’s trade and research participation, subject to a clause which is routinely ignored. Article 2 of the Association Agreement states that: “Relations between the Parties, as well as the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this agreement.”

Obligations on both sides have been neglected. The refusal to suspend Israel’s participation is a reflection of the diplomacy at an international level which is prioritised over the protection of human rights. Israel has not honoured Article 2 of the agreement, while the EU has continued to turn a blind eye when it comes to the settler-colonial state’s violation of human rights and of its own stipulated clauses.

Read: Goods from Israel settlements granted preferential EU trade deals 

In their statement the MEPs have managed to impart the political and humanitarian impact of Israel’s violations upon the Palestinian people, particularly in their descriptions of forced displacement and settlement construction as “war crimes under international law”. The statement imparts an awareness of swift decline in the erasure of Palestine and Palestinians, however there is no departure from the two-state rhetoric which is the foundation upon which the EU has based its diplomacy with Israel and which continues to influence the institution’s reticence to define Israel’s colonial character.

The DPAL delegation stressed:

The two-state solution will only be achieved when Israel starts feeling the consequences for their illegal action.

While the statement is partly true as regards facing accountability, it is also important to note that the two-state compromise seeks to maintain the earlier colonisation efforts by providing a purported solution which absolves Israel of its 1948 crimes, in particular the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population. Commitment to the two-state solution in the current scenario is also an affirmation of acquiescence with the concept of Israel as an inherently violent state.

Even if, hypothetically, the two-state scenario materialises, both DPAL and the EU should recognise that the imposition does not take into account the illegal means by which Israel came into existence and how this existence is the source of rupture when it comes to the Palestinian right of return. Hence, suspension of the agreement should be the first step in upholding accountability both ways – Israel should face accountability for its violations emanating from its existence while the EU’s introspection should include a thorough opposition to facilitating the colonial enterprise at the expense of the Palestinian population.

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