Natalie Bennett
:Jobs You Can Build a Life On: The British Economy Isn't Delivering
Stef Benstead
:The Reality of the Welfare Reform
Alice Farmer
:A real life 'Hunger Games'
Mehdi Hasan
:As a Muslim, I Struggle With the Idea Of Homosexuality - But I Oppose Homophobia
Francis FitzGibbon
:It Could be You
This week a coalition of 22 NGOs including Christian Aid and FIDH issued a report that was
the first to compare available export data from Israeli settlements and from Palestinians,
highlighting that the EU imports 15 times more from illegal Israeli settlements than from
Palestinians.
These findings reveal an inconsistency at the heart of EU policy.
I have long been involved in work on the Israel-Palestine conflict both through my work
as an MP and as a trustee for Medical Aid for Palestinians and I can confidently say that
the expansionist settlement project represents one of the most significant obstacles to a
peaceful two-state solution. The NGOs signing this report are being gratifyingly strategic:
it is critical of Israeli government policy - a view shared with many Israelis - but is also a
well-informed study which exposes the way in which the EU is contributing to the economic
viability of illegal settlements
The EU states that "settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle
to peace, and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible", but continues to provide a
primary export market for settlement products. The EU spends hundreds of millions of euros
in aid each year to support Palestinian state building but then undermines this assistance by
trading with illegal settlements, thus contributing to their viability and expansion.
We need to be sure to align the rhetoric with action.
Settlement farmers and manufacturers benefit from wide-ranging Israeli government
subsidies and enjoy easy access to international markets via government-built roads that
bypass Palestinian populated areas.
In stark contrast, the Palestinian economy is severely constrained by Israeli restrictions
on access to markets and natural resources, the annual cost of which has been estimated
at EUR 5.2 billion or 85% of the total Palestinian GDP. As a result of these restrictions,
Palestinian exports have declined from over half of Palestinian GDP in the 1980s to less
than 15% of GDP in recent years, effectively negating any benefits of the EU's preferential
trade agreement with the Palestinians.
This has helped create a situation where the Palestinian Authority is dependent on large
amounts of funds from the EU and other foreign donors and is currently facing an acute
fiscal crisis.
Adding to the contradictions at the heart of EU policy towards Israel's illegal settlements, the
EU has failed to fully exclude settlements from the benefits of its cooperation programmes
and bilateral agreements with Israel. In several cases, EU public funds for research and
development have been used to directly support activities in settlements. The newly ratified
EU-Israel Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products
(ACAA), is another example of EU's failure to insist on a firm distinction between Israel
proper and the illegal settlements.
European consumers have a right to know where the produce they are buying has come
from and to decide whether or not to purchase goods from settlements. This is even
enshrined in EU consumer protection law. And yet, in most EU member states, this right is
being denied and produce is labelled incorrectly as coming from 'Israel' or unclearly as from
the 'West Bank' without any distinction as to whether it is grown by Palestinians or Settlers.
Writing the introduction to the report, former EU Commissioner for External Relations, Hans
van den Broek warned that "the window of opportunity for peace between Israel and the
Palestinians is closing before our eyes. The EU now faces a fundamental challenge and
possibly last chance to translate its principled positions into effective action. If Europe wants
to preserve the two-state solution, it must act without delay and take the lead".
There is a growing awareness among European governments of the need to close the
gap between their rhetoric on settlements and their practice. The British and Danish
governments have already taken concrete steps by adopting guidelines for correct labelling
of settlement products. But there is much more that national governments and the EU can
do to ensure their policies do not directly or indirectly support settlements and the associated
injustices. This report gives them a handy checklist.
Both Israeli and the West Bank and Gazan populations are rapidly increasing in a finite environment with no sign of abatement. It's only a matter of time before social tensions lead to aggression as external support becomes less forthcoming due to increasing poverty in their domestic arenas.
As part of the several attempts to come to a final status agreement, most importantly at Camp David in the summer of 2000, Israel offered to withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip and between 90-96 percent of the West Bank. Unfortunately, Palestinians rejected these offers and instead of building a state for their people, they chose to mount a five year war of terror that killed many hundreds of Israeli civilians and resulted in Israel building fences between Jewish and Palestinian areas, restricting movement of Palestinians. Cue subsequent economic decline.
It was not an outcome Israel had sought when it went into Oslo, but it ended the intifada and to this day the security fences and checkpoints have saved uncountable lives. The Palestinian failure to live up to its Oslo commitments to end terror opened the door for Israel to allow more settlement building and many thousands of Israelis chose to live in the ancient Jewish land of Judea and Samaria.
Continued
In 2005, Israel boldly decided to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It evacuated all its soldiers and painfully dismantled 21 settlements in the area it called Gush Katif – approximately 9,000 citizens, many of whom had lived in their homes peacefully for decades, and whose businesses employed Gaza residents. Israel also removed four settlements in the West Bank.
The hope was that “ending the occupation” and evacuating settlements would satisfy the Palestinians’ demands and provide an opportunity for them to begin to build the infrastructure of an independent state in Gaza.
Instead, they saw it as a sign of Israel's lack of determination – a crack in its resolve, a weakness, and they launched a rocket and mortar bombardment that continues to this day against southern Israel that keeps the innocent civilians there in a state of constant anxiety. Once again, instead of land for peace, Israel traded land for terror, death, and war. The Gazans, who had had the opportunity they’d dreamed of for decades in their hands, found themselves human shields to their Hamas "leaders".
The Palestinians often declare their support for talks, but go to great lengths to avoid them. The vast majority of Palestinians today live under autonomous Palestinian control, but find the quality of their lives has deteriorated since Oslo. Interestingly, they are also starting to show signs that they recognize the Palestinian Authority as the cause of their problems.
What do you mean ''the EU'' imports? Member states import. So, how do the figures break down?
Are there any particular corporations doing the importing? What is being imported? Produce for Marks & Spencer's?
Does ''correct labeling'' mean they will say ''from illegal settlements'? No, of course not.
I hope you can bring this to the notice of the Prime Minister.