The European Commission released a set of options on Thursday, 10 July, aimed at restricting trade with Israel’s illegal settlements. These proposals, which come after months of delays, are scheduled for review by EU foreign ministers on Monday, 13 July. The action follows mounting pressure from a growing majority of EU member states demanding a firm stance on the issue.
Critics, including the European Middle East Project and CIDSE, argue that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič have failed to table a definitive legislative proposal, instead offering a menu of inconclusive choices. Of the three options presented—an import-licensing regime, higher tariffs, and a trade ban—advocates argue that only a full trade ban is both legally and practically sound. The EU maintains that all Israeli settlements are illegal and undermine peace efforts, implying that their products should be excluded from the European market entirely.
A detailed proposal published this week by the European Middle East Project and CIDSE outlines how a regulation under the EU’s Common Commercial Policy (Article 207 TFEU) could be implemented. This approach seeks to ensure EU trade aligns with international law, reflecting the logic of the International Court of Justice, which identified the prevention of trade that sustains settlements as a legal obligation. Proponents emphasize that this is not a foreign policy sanction or symbolic gesture, but a requirement under EU treaties. The EU is bound by its treaties to respect international law in its external policies, includig trade. Therefore, stopping imports from settlements is not just an option but a legal requirement.
Economically, the case for a ban is bolstered by data showing that EU imports from Israeli settlements are 15 times larger than imports from Palestinian sources, despite the settlements’ use of Palestinian land and resources. Current policies, which allow settlement goods to enter the EU under standard Most Favoured Nation tariffs, are frequently undermined by the mislabeling of goods. Reports from the NGO Global Echo highlight how exporters often bypass rules by declaring settlement goods as products of Israel. An outright trade ban would provide a stronger deterrent against such circumvention, as businesses would face risks of seizure or destruction of goods for non-compliance.
As the European debate intensifies, momentum is building. British prime minister-in-waiting Andy Burnham has indicated that the UK may soon move to ban settlement imports. With the EU’s own policy direction shifting, supporters are urging the Commission to stop delaying and transition from discussing options to drafting a single, coherent legislative proposal to end trade with the settlements.
Banning trade with the settlements is also practically enforceable.
An import ban would thus allow tackling circumvention more effectively than the current policy. Additional technical measures, some already adopted or proposed by Spain and the Netherlands in their national-level legislation to stop trade with settlements, would further reduce opportunities for circumvention.
