EU sanctions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank remain stalled despite majority support

Brussels / BarcelonaThe European Union remains deadlocked on sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It is one of the pressure measures that has been on the table of the EU Foreign Affairs Council for the longest time and is gaining increasing support among member states. In fact, as the head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, explained at a press conference, a "majority" of European Foreign Ministers have expressed their support for prohibiting trade with the occupied territories of the West Bank at this Monday's meeting in Brussels, but she did not announce any legal proposal or forecast for its realization.

Although it is a commercial measure, the European Commission, led by the German conservative Ursula von der Leyen, wants to consider it a foreign policy sanction. In this way, it cannot be approved by a qualified majority among member states, but must be processed by unanimity. This move has angered several European Foreign Ministers, and one of the most forceful in this regard has been the Spanish minister, José Manuel Albares, who has called it a "dilatory tactic".

Spain and countries like France, Belgium, or the Netherlands are some of the member states exerting the most diplomatic pressure on the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite this, they always encounter the opposition of traditionally pro-Zionist governments, such as Germany or Austria. In fact, even though the UN investigation concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the people of Gaza, the EU has barely applied any sanctions against Tel Aviv and maintains the association agreement, which establishes a political and commercial framework between the two powers, although it is subject to respect for human rights.

The opinion of the International Court of Justice

Specifically regarding trade with illegal settlements, in 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that states must "take measures to prevent commercial or investment relations that contribute to maintaining the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory". The ruling justified this by stating that Israel had committed multiple violations of international law, including actions that can be equated to a regime of apartheid.

Along these lines, countries like Spain have promoted some trade restrictions in areas outside Brussels' jurisdiction. "But in most areas of trade policy, the decision must be made by the European Union," points out Alfons González Bondia, professor of international law at the Rovira i Virgili University. Following the ruling, human rights organizations no longer just call on the EU to ban trade with illegal settlements, but now consider it an obligation.

Currently, the Twenty-Seven impose higher tariffs on products from occupied areas than on those imported from Israeli territory, a measure that Tel Aviv neutralizes with compensation to companies. Precisely one of the options that European Foreign Ministers had on the table this Monday was not to agree to a ban and opt for imposing strong tariffs to the point of making trade with the occupied territories almost impossible, according to an internal European Commission document obtained by Euronews.

In a statement at the end of June, Amnesty International described the EU's current policy regarding illegal settlements as "manifestly inadequate". The human rights organization pointed out that the policies currently in place "undoubtedly do not constitute measures to prevent trade with illegal settlements", but rather "are designed to continue this trade", which contributes to "sustaining" the illegal situation. And regarding the possibility of exerting pressure through tariffs, it warned that Israel would "probably" compensate for them, as it already does with the taxes applied to products from occupied territories.

Be that as it may, consensus within the European Union, despite everything, has not yet been reached. "For the EU, it is a difficult decision to make, because, although there are fewer and fewer differences, not all states have the same opinion on Israel's actions," asserts González Bondia. "Each of the states analyzes the measures from its point of view and taking into account how they will particularly affect them. Furthermore, it is not usually common to use these types of measures against countries that are theoretically partners of Europe," he concludes.