The EU and settlement products – what’s true, what’s not

Accuracy on what the court’s ruling is really about and its implications are part of our shared responsibility to promote and protect our relationship.

By EMANUELE GIAUFRET
European Union flags fly near the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, October 4, 2019 (photo credit: YVES HERMAN/REUTERS)
European Union flags fly near the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, October 4, 2019
(photo credit: YVES HERMAN/REUTERS)
This month, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a binding interpretation of the EU’s rules on the need to correctly indicate the origin of products, which is in line with an indicative interpretative notice issued by the European Commission in 2015. The court – which has the prerogative to interpret the law within the EU – concluded that to ensure that consumers in the EU are accurately informed the origins of the products they are buying, a precise distinction must be made between products which come from the State of Israel in its internationally recognized borders (“Made in Israel”), and those which come from the settlements in the territories that international law defines as occupied since June 1967.
The EU and Israel have very close relations: the EU has been a consistent trading partner for Israel, with total trade in goods amounting to approximately €34.4 billion in 2018. One out of three exported Israeli products goes to the EU market. Against this background, accuracy on what the court’s ruling is really about and its implications are part of our shared responsibility to promote and protect our relationship. It is therefore important to clarify what the issue of indication of origin is and what it is not.
• First, differentiation is not a new issue. A distinction already exists between products “made in Israel” and those made in the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Israel’s free-trade agreement with the EU provides preferential tariff treatment to products coming from Israel within its internationally recognized borders. On the other hand, products coming from settlements can enter the EU market, but cannot enjoy this preferential treatment. This distinction is a response to a UN Security Council call on all UN members to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. It is also a reflection of the fact that, in line with international law, the EU does not recognize any change to the 1967 lines unless agreed to by the parties.
• Second, in line with the EU legislation, products must, wherever they come from, have a correct indication of origin, as failure to do so might mislead the consumer. The ruling confirms these rules in order to allow consumers to make an informed decision about whether to buy a product or not. “Made in Israel” should only be used for products produced inside Israel’s internationally recognized borders when entering the EU market.
• Third, accusations that this ruling is antisemitic in nature are unfounded and untrue. The EU stands firmly against all forms of antisemitism, as the phenomenon is incompatible with the values and principles on which the union is founded. Antisemitism needs to be fought wherever it exists – and the EU is committed to doing so. Calling out antisemitism where it does not exist is irresponsible because it detracts from the real issues at stake.
The EU has a privileged partnership and trading relationship with Israel, and this will not change. The requirement to correctly indicate the origin relates to the location where the goods were produced, not by whom. Only if the goods have been obtained or have undergone their last substantial processing or working in Israel can the indication of origin be “Made in Israel.”
• Fourth, the interpretation is not discriminatory, and it is not against Israel. The court was called upon to render an interpretation in connection to a specific dispute concerning products from settlements in occupied territories. The court was not asked to address other possibly similar cases. The EU’s policy differs, for example, in Crimea, Abkhazia or Ossetia, where it has an outright ban on imports.
• Finally, suggestions that the ruling or the EU rules – on the provision of food information to consumers are encouraging European importers and consumers directly and indirectly to boycott not only settlement products, but also products from Israel – are also incorrect. The ruling is neither a ban nor a boycott. The EU does not support any form of boycott or sanctions against Israel. And it rejects attempts by the campaigns of the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement to isolate Israel.
Israel and the EU have built a strong relationship, based on cooperation and respect, in a wide range of fields: from trade to counter-terrorism, transportation, education, research and innovation, and the fight against antisemitism. Therefore, it is crucial that any exchanges on the ruling be clear, informed and factually correct, as well as respectful for the authority of the court.
The writer is the EU ambassador to Israel.