Momentum for EU action over Israeli settlements gets bogged down in procedural squabble

The European Union is entangled in a procedural dispute over a potential ban on trade with Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. This debate highlights a shift in the EU's decision-making approach, particularly concerning actions against Israel.

Following former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's frequent use of veto power to block aid to Ukraine, the EU explored creative ways to bypass unanimity, often opting for majority votes. However, the European Commission now appears to favor unanimous decision-making when it comes to sanctioning Israel. The proposed ban on trade with settlements has become stalled in a legally ambiguous discussion about whether it constitutes a foreign policy decision or a trade policy matter.

The distinction is crucial. A change in trade policy requires only a "qualified majority" – support from at least 15 member states representing about two thirds of the bloc's population. However, if deemed a foreign policy decision, a single country fiercely protective of Israel could block it. The commission's argument that the ban aims for a "foreign policy objective" by sending a political message to Israel suggests it would require the backing of all 27 member states.

This stance contrasts with previous positions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has previously supported using qualified majorities for foreign policy decisions. When the commission proposed suspending an EU-Israel free trade deal over the Gaza conflict, it stated that only a qualified majority was needed. That proposal lacked sufficient member state support, partly due to wavering from Italy and a subsequent peace deal in Gaza. A ban targeting only settlements might be easier to pass, but the commission's insistence on unanimity appears to be a tactic to delay or prevent an agreement.

“

The commission’s suggestion that the bar suddenly be raised to require the support of all 27 governments seems to be a pretty clumsy effort to steer the discussion into a debate with no end and then shrug its shoulders when there’s no agreement.