Skip to main content

Settlement products are unethical goods


Do you know where a product you usually consume has been produced? Within the EU borders, you usually do. According to European legislation, the origin of many products has to be specified. But... what about the products with the label "Made in Israel"? That is a much more complicated issue, for these may have been manufactured in Tel Aviv, in Hebron, or in the Israeli Settlement of Ariel. European regulation lay down for which products it is required (notably fresh fruit and vegetables and a few other food products such as honey, olive oil and wine, as well as cosmetics) and for which it is not. Moreover, labelling is the responsibility of the merchant and not the producer. And merchants are often unaware of the issue of the settlements, as a result of which they fail to label these products correctly. This is going to change.

After months of procrastination, several EU Foreign Ministers have asked the HR Catherine Ashton to move forward with plans whereby consumer goods produced in Israeli settlements (including those in the Golan Heights) will have to present a special type of labeling distinguishing them from the rest of the products manufactured in Israel. So far, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (despite its being considered by Israel as one of its closest friends in Europe) were the only ones to have taken the unilateral decision of requiring goods made in settlements to make a reference to its exact origin. Even though the final aim would be to prohibit the sale of goods produced in the occupied territories, only those falsely labelled will be removed. The final decision will thus fall into the EU consumers' hands, many of them not aware of the fact that every year the settlers export some €250 millions worth of goods to Europe, whereas the Palestinians export just €15 millions worth of products. The decision will surely represent a major blow to bilateral trade, as according to the 1995 EU-Israel Association Agreement, products made in the occupied territories should not benefit from lower tariffs (it should be mentioned that the Israeli Finance Ministry compensates the exporters for the extra cost, though).

With this measure, the EU ministers seek to distinguish Israeli products manufactured within the borders established after the 1967 war (what we usually call the Green Line) of those who are made in Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory. This may seem like a small step for Palestine, but it is a huge leap for the EU and its foreign policy, for the EU finally has a clear position on settlement activity in the occupied territories. This move will undoubtedly put Europe on a confrontation course with Israel, but it seems the only current alternative, as the main issue blocking the resumption of any kind of peace talk is settlement policies. This may be the only way to remind Israel of the illegality of colonisation, stressing at the same time that human rights and democracy are pillars of the EU integration process.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Migrating

Aunque el título pueda referirse a uns de las varias mudanzas a los que me conocéis personalmente estáis acostumbrados, se refiere simplemente a este humilde blog, que tantas alegrias me ha dado. A partir de ahora podréis encontrar todos mis artículos en la página https://discoveringmena.blog Although the title could well refer to one of the rushed and unpredictable decisions those amongst you who know me are by now you used to, 'migrating' refers here to the new site this humble blog - which has given me so much joy - is moving to. From now on you can find all of my articles on the page https://discoveringmena.blog

Why Brahimi is a much better fit for Syria

Visiting Scholar for the Carnegie Middle East Center´s Sami Moubayed has got it all right. His magnificent article Brahimi won´t risk his reputation in vain  highlights the poignant truth about of one of the most serious mistakes the international community (and particularly both the UN and the League of Arab States) has made since the breaking out of the conflict: choosing the wrong mediator. And taking into account the many many (many) things at stake, it really shocks me why nearly nobody stressed that fact earlier. Appointing an special envoy to show unity/consensus and be able to speak to Assad? Great idea. Not bearing in mind what was exactly needed? Failure. Even though he will have to face several setbacks, let´s only hope Brahimi´s appointment somehow clears the path of the Syrian mess... His advantages, as presented by Moubayed: He is "the man who helped end Lebanon’s civil war, who managed Iraq’s troubled post-Saddam elections, and propped up Hamid Karza...

What about Lebanon?

I would never dare to think I have enough knowledge so as to freely talk about this issue and produce a meaningful article, but I will try to write down what I have understood so far (I already had to edit as I misunderstood some facts, thanks Louis!). Lebanon and Syria have always been deeply interconnected. Both countries were part of the Ottoman Empire, both countries were under the dominance of France's colonization, both countries share an extremely complicated ethnic/religious division, and both countries political scenes still depend on the other's. More recently, Syria was a key player in the brokering of the 1989 Taif Accords putting an end to Lebanon's civil war, and its troops (and many authorities) stayed in the country (allegedly guaranteeing the non resumption of violence) until 2005, when the country's population unanimously demanded their retreat. It all started in Tripoli, Lebanon's second largest city, next to the country's northern borde...