Trading Away Peace

In 1993 the Oslo agreements were marked with the historic handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn.  Israel agreed to withdraw from defined areas of the West Bank and Gaza and to allow elections to take place to enable a Palestinian Authority to have some degree of autonomy.  At the time the population in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories was 282,000.  Today it is over 500,000. 

Israeli Government policy has encouraged the expansion of settlements in the West Bank although this expansion is recognised to be illegitimate under international law by the United States, EU and UK government.  It is claimed that settlements restrict Palestinian movement to such an extent that they now call into question the viability of the two-state solution.

Today 22 agencies and churches have published a report detailing the EU’s trading relationship with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The report reveals that the volume of EU trade with illegal settlements is 15 times that of trade with Palestinian communities in the West Bank.  

The faith-based groups in the UK supporting this report are Christian Aid, Quakers and the Methodist Church.  They are asking for national governments within the EU to make the importation of settlement produce illegal.  Meanwhile, in the short term, we are calling for the labelling guidance on Israeli settlement produce that has been introduced by the UK and Denmark to be extended across the EU. This enables consumers to determine, in the case of products originating from the West Bank, whether a product has been sourced from Israeli settlements or from Palestinian areas.  The Methodist Church in Britain endorses this report in line with Methodist Conference resolutions that have called for progress towards peace and justice in the region and the avoidance of goods sourced from settlements.  The agencies supporting this report do not support a general boycott of Israel. 

I have previously mused on the roles that the EU might play today in supporting a durable solution in Israel/Palestine.  This focus on trade with settlements represents one possible contribution from the EU which is Israel’s largest single trading partner.   Trade with Israel and Palestine should continue to be a force for increased understanding and co-operation.  A refusal to trade with illegal settlements would send the strong signal that the EU views adherence to international law as one vital aspect in achieving justice and resolution to conflict.

Emissions from aviation – battle lines are drawn



The UK churches and many church members have called for emissions from international aviation and shipping to be taken into account in international targets. That was somewhat stymied when the climate talks in Copenhagen failed to agreed to any binding targets. However the EU has pressed on regardless. As of 2012 emissions from aviation will be incorporated into the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and will become the second largest sector in the ETS after power generation.

China is among those objecting. Although the EU will be allocating 80% of emissions permits free to reduce the cost to airlines, the China Air Transport Association states that it will cost Chinese airlines $123 million in the first year and triple that by 2020. Surely then, the solution is to ensure greater occupancy on flights (with potentially fewer flights) and accelerate the introduction of more fuel efficient aircraft.

In Oslo this week the US Administration has also stated its strong objections and is seeking an exemption for US airlines landing or taking off from European airports. Several US airlines (including American Airlines and Continental Airlines) are seeking to challenge the EU legislation in the European Court. The case is due to be heard on 6 July.

One can understand why this unilateral EU initiative is not popular. Tim Clarke, Chief Executive of Emirates Airline has suggested that it will spawn ETS in Asia, Australasia, the Middle East. Those governments opposing the inclusion of aviation emissions in national targets have argued that this is just too complicated and there is no agreed basis for how to apportion such emissions. This European legislation could expose the fallacy of this argument leaving the recalcitrant US and Chinese emperors looking distinctly naked.

What does “Made in Israel" mean?

When I am looking for exciting and interesting politics I tend not to immediately look through German Customs Tax Law, but last Thursday I had cause to reconsider. In an important ruling by the European Court the German exchequer managed to retrieve 20,000 Euros it has been owed by Brita GmbH. It gets more interesting from here as the reason why Brita must pay these import taxes is facinating:

There is an agreement allowing some imports into EU from Israel to be tax free. This European Court rulling states that goods produced in Israeli Settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory are not made in Israel, and therefore should pay import duties. Brita's products were made in the occupied territories so the court ruled tax must be paid.

A clear ruling from Europe’s highest court that the occupied territories are not to be treated as part of Israel is significant. Other details of the case are however more important.

• The Israeli authorities when asked where Brita's imports came from would only confirm these goods originated in an area under Israeli responsibility and said nothing about the West Bank or occupied territories. Over the seven years of this case the Israeli authorities, despite having a preferential trade agreement with the EU, were at worst obstructive and at best ambivalent to the EU Tax authorities.
  
• The Israeli Foreign Ministry’s response to the judgement was “Israel regrets a decision which authorizes the persecution of Israeli products made in Judea and Samaria and a constitution of the European political campaign against the settlements”. I can’t imagine this line is a prelude to renewed co-operation over tax law.
  
• Brita GmbH stated that the imported goods were made in Israel, and pressed this point all the way through the appeals process; my German is not good enough to understand the court’s opinion as to the integrity of this statement.

Dr Phyllis Starkey MP in a UK Parliament debate on 10th Jan outlined how it is possible to ensure that settlement goods get a “Made in Israel” label and thus avoid both Import Taxes and potential consumer protests. She also provided evidence that Israel “turned a blind eye” to these practices despite enjoying preferential trade status with the EU [Hansard Link].

The UK is in the process of introducing a voluntary labelling scheme to give consumers information about where Israeli products are made. The question does “Made in Israel” also mean “Made in Illegal Israeli Settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories” is still open.

Our friends in the Quakers are taking action on settlement goods.