24/06/2026
The European Commission needs to ban trade with Israel’s illegal settlements, and it needs to do so now, under Article 207 TFEU. That’s the message sent to President von der Leyen, High Representative Kallas, and Commissioner Šefčovič in a letter signed by The Good Lobby together with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, FIDH, Oxfam, CIDSE, EuroMed Rights, Pax Christi International, 11.11.11, CNCD-11.11.11, Danish Church Aid, and the European Middle East Project.
Why now
This demand isn’t new, but it has recently found both greater political and legal support. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion finding that Israel’s settlement policy and related practices breach international law, including the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid, and that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is itself illegal. Crucially, the Court went further than condemning Israel. It said third states – including every EU member – have an obligation to prevent trade and investment that helps sustain that illegal situation. That puts the question squarely on the EU’s desk.
As argued today by over 40 scholars of international and EU law, the EU can act now, and it doesn’t need unanimous Council agreement to do it. In a separate letter to the same three Commissioners, legal academics from across Europe argue that Article 207 TFEU – not unanimity under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – is the correct legal basis for a regulation banning settlement trade.
The scholars point to the EU’s binding duty under international law to avoid recognising or assisting Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT, already reflected in CJEU rulings like Brita (2010) and Psagot (2019), which treat settlement goods as legally distinct from goods made in Israel. On the legal-basis question, they argue CJEU case law is clear: a measure falls under Article 207 TFEU whenever it directly governs trade, regardless of its foreign-policy motivation – the same basis the EU has used for trade bans tied to forced labour, conflict minerals, and Russian sanctions. Treating settlement trade as a CFSP matter requiring unanimity, they say, is inconsistent with that case law and driven by political rather than legal considerations.
Why the current approach isn’t enough
For years, EU policy has denied settlement goods preferential tariffs and required correct labelling, while still letting them into the EU market. The NGO-led letter makes the case that this approach was never going to satisfy the ICJ’s standard, and recent reporting suggests it isn’t even being enforced consistently. Worse, Israel reportedly compensates settlement businesses for the tariff difference, which means even a perfectly enforced differentiation policy – or a tariff hike short of a full ban – may end up changing very little on the ground. Meanwhile, any tariffs the EU does collect amount to the Union profiting from an occupation it has repeatedly called unlawful.
What we’re asking for
The NGO-letter calls on the Commission to use Article 207 TFEU – the same legal basis the EU has previously relied on to ban trade in goods made with forced labour, restrict trade in conflict minerals, and block trade in goods used for torture – to prohibit trade with Israel’s illegal settlements. This covers goods and services, and it would apply consistently with how the EU has used trade tools to enforce its values before. If the Commission won’t act, we’re encouraging member states to consider taking the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The bigger picture
EU imports from settlements vastly outstrip imports from Palestinians in the same territory, and that trade happens without Palestinian consent. As settler violence and land seizures in the West Bank intensify, a Union that has spent decades condemning settlements as illegal has the tools, and now the legal obligation, to back that position with action rather than statements.