EU accused of stalling the ball on trade ban with illegal Israeli settlements

Spain's foreign minister has voiced strong criticism, accusing the European Union of employing delaying tactics in its efforts to implement a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. The call for EU-wide restrictions on goods from settlements in the West Bank and other occupied territories has gained momentum, yet significant divisions persist among the 27 member states, with several hesitant to impose sanctions on Israel.

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, recently presented three potential strategies: a complete or partial trade ban, imposing prohibitive import tariffs, or establishing a licensing system for Israeli businesses in occupied territories. However, Spain's Minister for Foreign Affairs, José Manuel Albares, stated that his government favors an outright EU ban. He deemed the alternative options unacceptable as they would effectively legitimize trade with illegal settlements.

“

I am concerned that we are engaging in a delaying tactic, debating and debating without taking any action.

A key point of contention lies in the required threshold for approving such a ban. Officials from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's office argue that because it falls under foreign policy, unanimous consent from all member states is necessary. Conversely, a coalition of countries advocating for action against Israel contends that since it concerns trade, a weighted majority should be sufficient.

This procedural disagreement has led to a stalemate, with countries like Germany and the Czech Republic, known for their strong support of Israel, insisting on unanimous approval. This stance potentially allows nations such as Hungary, the Czech Republic, or Slovenia to veto any such proposal. Foreign ministers convened in Brussels to discuss blacklisting products from illegal settlements, but frustration over the lack of progress was palpable, according to sources present.

“

As a lawyer myself, there is a saying – when there are two lawyers there are three opinions.