The EU's political alibi on Israeli settlement goods

For over three decades, European markets have remained open to goods from illegal Israeli settlements, despite repeated international rulings against their presence. A proposal to restrict these imports is now gaining traction, backed by a coalition including Ireland, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Slovakia. The debate hinges on whether the measure is classified as foreign policy, which requires unanimous approval, or trade policy, which permits a qualified majority vote.

Proponents of the unanimity requirement argue that such a move constitutes a geopolitical decision. However, the European Court of Justice has long maintained that trade measures aimed at upholding human rights fall under trade law, not foreign policy. The EU previously set a precedent by restricting Russian energy imports via a qualified majority, overriding objections from Hungary and Slovakia. If that threshold sufficed for energy security, the argument for a higher bar on settlement goods appears increasingly hollow.

Critics point to a 'double bluff' being played by governments in Berlin and Rome. By insisting on unanimity, these states can perform a delicate political dance: offering rhetorical support for the ban while knowing that consensus is impossible to achieve. This strategic use of procedure acts as a convenient shield against actual policy change. With similar restrictions already applied to goods from Western Sahara and northern Cyprus using majority voting, the insistence on unanimity for Israel appears less like a legal necessity and more like a calculated choice to avoid the responsibility of concrete action.