During a debate in European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) on Wednesday 6 May, MEPs discussed the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement with European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS) representatives.
While debate focused mainly on the agreement’s trade provisions, several political groups urged the European Commission to take action to secure an agreement between governments ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday 11 May.
Still no consensus in the EU Council. “Events occurring in the occupied Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, as well as the Knesset’s adoption of the death penalty, have sparked renewed calls to reopen the debate regarding this specific article”, explained Vladimir Janeček, Head of the Middle East Division at the EEAS.
However, suspending the Association Agreement in its entirety requires unanimity in the EU Council, whereas action regarding purely trade-related provisions requires a qualified majority of Member States. According to Mr Janeček (see EUROPE 13853/4), neither of these objectives were achieved at the last Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 21 April.
Pressure is mounting. “Last year, the EEAS’s internal assessment concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement”, which concerns respect for human rights and democratic principles, pointed out MEP Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgian) during the debate, as she called for EU-level action, noting that certain Member States, such as Spain and Belgium, have already taken action of their own. “When will the Commission propose banning trade with illegal territories? Can this be done within the framework of the common commercial policy, and therefore by qualified majority?”, she asked.
In the Greens/EFA and The Left groups, several MEPs called on the Commission to be more proactive in unblocking an agreement within the EU Council.
“The Commission merely reiterates that it has put a proposal on the table and hides behind the divisions among Member States”, said Manon Aubry (The Left, French), vice-chair of the INTA Committee, when interviewed by Agence Europe. “Yet it has demonstrated its capacity to act, during the Covid-19 crisis and since the start of the war in Ukraine. We must maintain pressure ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council to suspend the Association Agreement and ban products originating from illegal settlements in the West Bank”, she added.
Labelling of imported products. The INTA Committee also addressed the issue of labelling for products originating from Israel. Doubts persist regarding their territorial origin, despite the fact that in 2015 the European Union published a communication specifying that products imported into the EU from Israeli settlements established after 1967, which are illegal under international law, cannot be presented as originating from Israel.
On this point, Lídia Pereira (EPP, Portuguese) emphasised the clarity of European rules. “This is not a boycott, but simply a matter of labelling. These products should not benefit from trade preferences, as doing so is tantamount to circumventing rules of origin and customs regulations”, she explained.
When asked about this, a European Commission representative replied that the enforcement of these rules falls to the authorities of Member States, specifically those responsible for market surveillance regarding labelling. Furthermore, the Commission indicated that, at this stage, it has received no notifications of non-compliance, neither from any Member State nor from EU companies. (Original version in French by Juliette Verdes)