Tsafrir Abayov/AP/Press Association Images. All rights reserved.Relations between Europe and Israel are very
solid. Since the EU-Israel Association Agreement entered into
force in 2000, the European Union has opened many areas for cooperation. However, despite Israel's privileged status, the relationship with the EU has at times been tense.
Israel often feels singled out, as happened in the case of the EU’s decision to
label settlement goods.
However, the EU has always stated that it will not
recognise any unilateral changes to the pre-1967 borders and has insisted on
the illegality of the settlements. At the same time it has left some scope for
Israel to differ and to apply the bilateral agreements according to its
national legislation. It was only recently that the EU took corrective measures to allow the deepening of relations with Israel while at the same time
ensuring respect for international law.
Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territory and its settlement
expansion, relations between Israel and the EU have been remarkably robust. The
EU is firmly committed to the two-state solution, where
a viable Palestinian state is established next to a secure Israeli state. It
views settlements as a major obstacle to the two-state solution and insists it will not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian
territory (oPt). The
European Union has always been clear about the illegality of the acquisition of
territory by the use of force and its duty of non-recognition of the illegal
acts of third states.
the same time, Israel also held clear positions on the settlements and its
refusal to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines. Since the start of its occupation in 1967, it has
embarked on the ambitious project of transforming the Palestinian territory. It
has acquired territory through the use of force and denied the Palestinian
people their right to self-determination. As there was no
sovereign power in the Palestinian territories, Israel argues it cannot be
considered the occupying power and that it is therefore not bound to observe
the Fourth Geneva Convention. It has gradually transformed the habitat and the
demography of the territory and settled its own population.
peace agreements, starting in Madrid in 1991, were premised on the
implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, demanding
Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories. Yet, the US and the EU did
not want to
pressure Israel to withdraw to the armistice line of 1949. From the start of
the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP), the EU decided not to pursue a
rights-based approach in order to maintain Israel's cooperation. Hence, there
was no reference in the Oslo agreements to the Fourth Geneva Convention and
Israel's obligations as an occupying power, as Israel had vetoed all references
to international humanitarian law (IHL). Concretely, Israel was given the right
to interpret the agreements according to its own position.
Even if it was
agreed that no party shall take steps that change the status of the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip, Israel considered the ambiguity in the MEPP as a sign that
it could continue the transformation of the occupied Palestinian territory. It’s policy of creating ‘facts on the ground’ has not only undermined the two-state solution,
but led to a ‘one state reality’.
treaties oblige the EU to maintain consistency between its policies and practices.
However, for a long time it has given Israel the right to differ and to apply
its bilateral relations with the EU according to its own legislation, in
contravention of international law.
was the case with the Association Agreement, which did not include a territorial
clause, that Israel applied to the settlements. Even the Commission’s
introduction of a technical arrangement did not allow the EU to effectively
implement its own legislation. It is next to impossible and very burdensome for
EU customs to exclude settlement goods from
preferential treatment through the comparison of postal codes on Israeli proofs
of origin and postal codes on a list of non-eligible locations. The only adequate
solution would be for Israeli authorities themselves to distinguish between
Israeli goods and goods originating in the settlements.
However, the EU and its member states did not want to
apply the rules blindly for fear of losing influence in the MEPP. They also
believed that through socialisation, Israel would integrate the EU’s norms and
values and correct its behaviour. This
did not happen and it became clear to European institutions that they needed
to change their approach when drawing up agreements with Israel.
Over recent years, the EU has made it clear
to Israel that it has positions and commitments it cannot let go of, and
initiated a process of differentiation between Israel and its activities beyond the Green Line. Think tanks and NGOs have argued that if the EU wants to
conform to its own norms; it cannot let Israel’s wrongful practices decide how
EU legislation is implemented.
Affairs Council of December 2009, the Council reiterated
its readiness to develop bilateral relations with Israel, while insisting that
it will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders. The EU has become
increasingly diligent in its approach.
In 2012, the Foreign
Affairs Council committed
to ensuring that future agreements “unequivocally and explicitly
indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967”. A clear basis was established for member state action to prevent the designation of
settlement goods as “Israeli”. This resulted in an interpretative notice by the European External Action Service on the indication of the origin of settlement goods in November 2015.
This corrective process also led to the 2013 Commission Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their
activities in the occupied territories, excluding them from EU grants, prices and
financial instruments. The EU’s resolve to implement the guidelines was
successfully tested in setting out the terms of Israel’s participation in the
Horizon 2020 programme.
The worrying developments on the ground call into question the EU’s
approach towards the MEPP. Sitting on the sidelines does not help, nor does offering
carrots without brandishing any sticks. The EU has not gained more leverage
over Israel. On the contrary, Israel has largely ignored the EU’s appeals to respect its obligations
as an occupying power.
Furthermore, Israel has started to thwart the EU’s goals, such as
Palestinian state-building, and has openly provoked it. The demolitions of EU
funded projects and the attacks on EU funding for human rights, show that
Israel is mainly interested in partnership where there are gains, without
willingness to work on respect for IHL and commitment to shared values.
The demolitions of
EU funded projects show that it is time for a break; the EU needs to
consider how it wants to balance deepening relations with Israel by adhering
to its own values and norms and its commitment to Palestinian state-building. Future cooperation should continue to bring the relations with
Israel in alignment with the EU’s positions. Furthermore, it should drive a
process that promotes compliance with international law. Ongoing
impunity and lack of accountability is a bad basis to continue this
The EU needs to confront Israel with the fundamental choice of
whether it wants to continue its occupation and systematic violations of
international law (with all the criticism that comes along with this) or if it
wants to be a full and respected member of the international community.