European Parliament

In 2002, at the time of the Israeli invasion of West Bank towns in response to the Second Intifada, the EU Parliament adopted (269 in favour 208 against) a non-binding resolution to suspend the Association Agreement (Trade Agreements) citing ‘the military escalation pursued by the Sharon government, which violates international and humanitarian law’ which it said would ‘provide no effective solution to the terrorist attacks’. However the EU Commission proceeded to ignore this vote.

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine

http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.net/

The Russell Tribunal, or International War Crimes Tribunal, founded in response to the US intervention in Vietnam, has carried out investigations of alleged war crimes in different countries.

Subsequent to Operation Cast Lead and following an appeal supported by over a hundred well-known international personalities, it was decided to organise a Russell Tribunal on Palestine. The Tribunal’s homepage comments: ‘It is important to mobilize the international public opinion so that the United Nations and Member States adopt the necessary measures to end the impunity of the Israeli State, and to reach a just and durable solution to this conflict.’ The Tribunal is a civic initiative ‘promoting international law as the core element of the Israeli-Palestinian issue’. Thus ‘it aims to demonstrate the complicity of third [party] states and international organisations which, through their passivity or active support, allow Israel to violate the rights of the Palestinian People, and let this situation be continued and aggravated.’ The first step will be ‘to establish how this complicity results in international responsibilities’.

With this end in view the First International Session of the Tribunal was held from 1-3 March, 2010, symbolically in Barcelona (see Trade Agreements,The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (‘Barcelona’ Declaration)).‘The mandate of the Tribunal constituted in Barcelona [was] to consider the extent to which the European Union and its member states are complicit in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory and in Israel’s violations of the rights of the Palestinian people.’ The discussion focussed on six questions:

1. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to promote and ensure respect for the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that right? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that right?

2. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law vis-à-vis the Palestinian people in the case of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the ‘Cast Lead’ military operation conducted by Israel from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law?

3. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty over their natural resources in the context of Israel’s building of settlements and pillage of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law and right in question?

4. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force and the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination in the case of the annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law, principle and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law, principle and right in question?

5. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law in connection with the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law?

6. 6.In the light of the foregoing, have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law and European law in the context of the agreements signed between the European Union and the State of Israel?
   

The Tribunal operates through expert witnesses stating their case over a period of two days before a jury and an audience which consists of representatives of organisations and informed individuals, all members of the public. The jury is international in character and includes Michael Mansfield QC, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, former French Ambassador to UNESCO Gisèle Halimi, South African writer and activist Ronald Kasrils and former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. At the end of this process the jury retires and the following day deliver their findings before an audience consisting of members of the press and the public.

A second session of the Tribunal, on corporate complicity in Israel’s violation of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and war crimes, was held in London in November 2010.

Pressure Coming from Within the UK

Arising both from civil society and from some MPs there has been considerable pressure to suspend the Association Agreement outright, this pressure having markedly increased since the onslaught on Gaza in Dec. 2008. Varied examples are as follows:

War on Want has mounted a multi-facetted campaign in relation to both Brussels and Westminster; see also under the trading of arms with Israel. In a statement of Jan. 2009, welcoming the EU suspension of the up-grade process, it demanded that the Agreement be suspended. A further statement was issued in June 2009 at the time that European foreign ministers were to hold talks with the Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman to discuss a possible upgrade of EU-Israel relations.

See ‘Profiting from the Occupation’.

Clare Short MP and the ‘European Campaign to End the Siege of Gaza’ launched, in Sept. 2009, a legal action requiring the EU to uphold the human rights provisions of the Association Agreement. Short commented: ‘I and many others have tried through our parliaments to require our governments to comply with international law, without success. We now hope legal action will require compliance. It is my firm belief that the only way to peace is to require Israel to comply with international law and that this is in the interests of all parties. The European Commission and member states are failing in their duty to uphold the conditions of our own treaty with Israel and to use these requirements to obtain long term peace and justice.’ For further information click here.

Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, has spoken in favour of suspending the agreement; to which the then Labour UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband responded: ‘I think that’s a bit naïve since the agreement, the upgrade [Trade Agreements] was for the Palestinians as well as for the Israelis.’ Quoted by Stuart Littlewood (see below). Littlewood comments that it is difficult to explain how the Palestinians would benefit from an upgrade since they don’t appear to have done so from the Agreement.

Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East.

An article by Stuart Littlewood on their website explains the ‘wretched’ agreement, commenting: ‘Honourable men [sic] would have enforced Article 2, observed all other codes and not let matters slide. They would have put the squeeze on Israel until the regime complied 100 percent with requirements. Israel relies heavily on exports to Europe so the EU could, at a stroke, end the evil occupation, murder and land theft, and resolve the problem in the Holy Land. What game is the EU Council of Ministers playing? And what part of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement don’t they understand?’

The Labelling of Goods

There has been a problem around the labelling of goods that come from Israeli settlements. Settlements fall outside the Association Agreement, since they are illegal and not part of Israel under international law; whereas Israel was labelling such goods simply as coming from ‘Israel’. In 2003 the Israeli government valued the settlements’ annual exports to Europe at about US$ 200 million, but when adjusted also to include goods partially produced in occupied territories the figure was likely to amount to at least US$ 2 billion, or 20% of total Israeli exports to the EU. In August 2004 the EU required that all goods be marked with the postcode of the place of origin, the arrangement coming into force in Feb. 2005. A further problem then arose through Israeli firms using a head office in Israel proper as proof of origin on a customs declaration, while a different statement of origin appeared on the product. In response, a further arrangement came into effect in July 2008 that sought to close this loophole by putting the onus on the importer to verify that the products met the qualifications for preferential treatment. According to an Israeli source, a government-owned insurance company is to compensate firms for the cost of EU customs tariffs on settlement goods, but it is not evident that this has been implemented.

Further Reading on the Labelling of Goods

- UK Economic Links with Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory (Profundo Economic Research, SOAS, Feb. 2009).

- Within the EU it is the UK that has taken a leading role in this matter: see Times Online, 11.12.2009.

Israeli Membership of the EU?

The idea has been raised, in particular by the former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, of Israeli membership of the EU. Israelis have prevaricated about this idea. Right wing Israelis are opposed to it, since membership would make it impossible for them to continue to expand into an annexed OPT. It seems very unlikely that it will be pursued on either side.

It might thus well be said that Israel has many of the benefits which member countries of the EU enjoy while remaining immune from the need to conform to its human rights requirements.

Wikipedia Commons

Further Information on the Barcelona Session

The findings of the Tribunal are available here.

For podcasts of the proceedings click here and here.

Return to EU & Israel Index