"International Court Rulings Require EU Action on Israel and Palestine: Sanctions, Trade Measures, Support for ICC Crucial to Comply with International Law"

[...] Some EU governments have long prevented the EU from taking measures to address the Israeli government’s grave abuses against Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank. A slew of recent rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) make this inaction no longer tenable, and will test the EU’s and its member states’ commitment to international law. [...]

This attitude stands in stark contrast with the EU’s laudable efforts to ensure accountability for atrocity crimes elsewhere, such as in Ukraine, Myanmar, and Syria, and has led to well-grounded accusations of double standards. The ICJ rulings make EU inaction no longer tenable, not only on moral but also on legal grounds.

Discussions on lists of options on how the EU should react to the hostilities in Gaza and, more recently, to the ICJ opinion, have been floating around Brussels and in European capitals. Clearly, though, what has been lacking is not options; it’s political will.

The July ICJ advisory opinion set out clear obligations for UN states. These include distinguishing between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory; not supporting Israel’s unlawful acts and the unlawful situation it has created in the OPT; and ensuring Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL), or the laws of war.

The EU has consistently stressed that settlements are illegal under international law. It also differentiates between products originating from Israel proper and those from settlements, granting preferential trade access only to the former. 

But differentiation is not enough.

The ICJ ruling says that states have an obligation

to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the [OPT] or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory” and “to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the [OPT].

[...] Contrary to an analysis attributed to the EU foreign policy chief legal officer, compliance with the Court’s obligations requires replacing the current EU policy of differentiation with a blanket ban on trade with the illegal settlements – as requested by a citizen-led initiative endorsed by dozens of human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, and by a cross-party group of 30 Members of the European Parliament. Pending a move at the EU level, the Irish government is considering doing that unilaterally. [...]

The EU has at least six tools to put considerable pressure on Israeli authorities to comply with IHL, and it should use them.

First, the EU should ban trade with illegal settlements. [...]

Second, the EU should review the bilateral Association Agreement with Israel – as requested by the governments of Spain and Ireland – with a view to possibly suspending it in whole or in part. [...]

Third, EU governments should suspend arms transfers to Israel given the real risk that the weapons will be used to commit serious abuses, and in compliance with their common position on arms transfers. [...]