The European Union is grounding its proposal to impose tariffs on Israel in a formal finding that Israel has violated the human rights components of its foundational trade agreement with the bloc. This legal justification marks a pivotal moment, shifting the debate from political criticism to a matter of contractual obligation.
At the heart of the issue is Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which stipulates that the relationship is based on a mutual respect for human rights and democratic principles. A review conducted by the EU’s diplomatic corps in June concluded that Israel was in breach of this crucial clause, paving the way for retaliatory measures.
Based on this finding, the European Commission is proposing to revoke the zero-tariff preference for a significant segment of Israeli goods. Instead of enjoying free access, these products would face tariffs of up to 40% under World Trade Organization rules. This partial suspension is described by officials as a “carefully considered response” to an increasingly dire situation in Gaza.
Critics of Israel within Europe have long called for the entire trade deal to be suspended over the Gaza war and settlement expansion. While the current proposal stops short of that, it establishes a direct link between Israel’s conduct in the conflict and its privileged access to the European market, the largest in the world.
Israel has rejected the premise of the EU’s actions, focusing its counter-argument on security needs. However, the EU’s reliance on the legal text of their agreement provides a powerful basis for its proposed sanctions, potentially making it more difficult for opposing member states to block the measures on purely political grounds.