New EU directive about Israeli settlements raises serious questions

Missing Peace

On Tuesday Israeli media reported that the European Union is about to issue a new directive which conditions all future cooperation agreements with Israel on the directive that they not include Israeli settlements on the Golan Heights and the West Bank.
The directive to all member countries forbids the financing, giving of scholarships, cooperation, research stipends and prizes to anyone residing in Judea and Samaria and east Jerusalem, Haaretz reported on Tuesday.
According to the directive, any future agreement signed with Israel must include a clause stipulating that the settlements are not part of the sovereign state and are not included in the agreement.

Israel HaYom reported that David Kriss, EU spokesman in Israel, confirmed the report, adding that the directive will be published on July 19 in an official EU policy publication. In a statement, Kriss said, “On June 30 the European Commission adopted a Notice containing guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards. …
“These guidelines were prepared as a result of the conclusions of the EU Foreign Affairs Council of Dec. 10, 2012 which stated that ‘all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.’”
The new EU directive raised some serious questions by Israeli experts which need to be answered by the European Union.
Nevet Brasker of the Broader View Resource Center asked the EU the following questions

1. Does the latest European initiative mean that the EU has abandoned, officially or de facto, the Middle East Quartet effort?  Borders were supposed to be a “final status” issue under the Quartet Roadmap, and last we heard—granted, it’s been a couple of years—Tony Blair, the Quartet envoy, was seeking proposals for border arrangements.  Has the EU now explicitly abandoned this effort and unilaterally determined the borders of Israel?
2. According to the report, a Jew living in Hebron is not eligible for some prize or scholarship, but an Arab living in Hebron is eligible.  Is this sort of anti-Semitic discrimination legal under the EU and individual countries’ laws?
3. Is an Arab-owned organization or entity in the West Bank eligible for EU cooperation or funding?  How about a Jewish-owned organization that employs non-Jews?  An entity owned by both Jews and non-Jews?  What exactly defines an organization or entity as Jewish or non-Jewish, or as eligible or not eligible?  Its address?  The ethnicity or religion of its owners, managers, or employees?
4. Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Turkey, regarding Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus—which the EU also doesn’t recognize?  Or do EU contracts specify sovereign borders only for Israel?  If the latter, what is the legal or moral basis for the distinction or dis
5. Does this new EU directive apply funding for all organizations operating in the West Bank, including those—like B’Tselem—that oppose the Israeli occupation and work to change or undermine Israeli government policies—in accordance with EU policies?   Is it what the American legal system calls a “viewpoint neutral” policy, or one that actively seeks to endorse one specific political position and censor another—within a (democratic) third country?

Professor Avraham Bell an expert on International law adds the following questions

• Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Morocco, regarding Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara? Or do EU contracts specify sovereign borders only for Israel?

• Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Russia, regarding Russia’s occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?

• Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with China, regarding China’s occupation of Tibet and Aksai Chin? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?

• Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with India, regarding India’s occupation of Arnuchal Pradesh and Kashmir? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?

• Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Armenia, regarding Armenia’s occupation of Nagorno Karabach? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?
• There are hundreds of areas in the world whose sovereignty is disputed.

Except for the questions asked by these Israeli experts, the EU needs to explain why it ignored recent rulings by European Courts about the legality of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the illegality of boycotts of Israeli products.
An European court recently ruled that the Israeli occupation of the WB is legal and that only the government of Israel can be held responsible for execution of article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, not individuals or companies.
Two European courts earlier ruled that boycotts of Israel are unlawful and constitute discrimination see here:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3164/france-penalizes-boycott-israeli-products
http://www.jpost.com/International/European-court-Israel-boycotts-are-unlawful-discrimination
Meanwhile a high ranking Israeli official, who requested anonymity, described the European Union’s move as a disproportionate “attack” on Israel, while a senior source in the Foreign Ministry said called the new EU decision as ‘’dramatic and a true earthquake.”

We invite members of the European Parliament and others to comment on this article.
Please send your comments to contact@missingpeace.eu