Campaigns supported by JfJfP – links to background and activist materials
We promote boycott, divestment and sanctions initiatives against Israeli and foreign companies profiting from the illegal occupation. And we consider, on a case-by-case basis, smart boycotts against the occupation. Campaigns and causes we have supported include, but are not limited to, those listed below. Further links will be added from time to time e.g. to campaigns against the arms trade, support for non-violent resistance at Bil’in and elsewhere, and more.
Following the list of campaigns are some links to some relevant general publications and websites.
EAPPI [in support of the Church of England’s Synod against attempts at intimidation by the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) and the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), June-July 2012]
General links and references
Who Profits is dedicated to exposing the commercial involvement of these companies in the continuing Israeli control over Palestinian and Syrian land. The project publishes information about these companies, produces in-depth reports and serves as an information center.
The study examines the extent to which trading in settlement produce has become an essential step in the consolidation of Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise. International stakeholders, particularly the European Union (EU), are directly contributing to the growth and viability of settlements by providing an essential source of revenue that allows them to thrive. This is especially true of settlements in the Jordan Valley, at least 60 per cent of which are dependent on agriculture.
By trading in settlement produce, EU Member States are ignoring the illegality of settlements and settlement-based production operations. In doing so, they are breaching their customary international law obligation not to recognise as legal a situation arising from a serious breach of peremptory norms (fundamental principles of international law)*, as defined in Article 41 of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on State Responsibility. By engaging in the trade of settlement produce, states are also failing to comply with their obligation to actively cooperate in order to put the Israeli settlement enterprise to an end. Consequently, a ban on trade in settlement produce is one of the measures that EU Member States should adopt to comply with their customary international law obligations.
Commenting on the report, Shawan Jabarin, General-Director of Al-Haq, said, “As the single largest trading partner of Israel, the EU is in a very strong position to effect positive change on the current situation of Occupation. And yet, while the EU has been quite outspoken in condemning settlements and their expansion, they continue to import produce from these same settlements and in doing so, help to sustain their very existence.”
The Government of Israel estimates that the value of goods produced in settlements in the West Bank and exported to Europe amounts to approximately 300 million USD per year. While this may represent a relatively small proportion of Israel’s total exports, it still amounts to a considerable quantity in absolute terms. Crucially, such trade, while contributing to the permanence and growth of settlements, has an increasingly negative effect on Palestinian communities and the Palestinian agricultural sector.
“As things stand,” continued Mr. Jabarin, “the EU is doing little more than ticking a box by acknowledging that settlements are illegal. Until they support this rhetoric with action and ensure that no assistance or recognition are provided to settlements, even indirectly, any such criticism will continue to be meaningless.”
Al-Haq calls upon the EU to comply with its legal obligations and act in accordance with Article 215(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) so as to ban produce originating from Israeli settlements in the OPT. In case the EU fails to comply with its obligations, Al-Haq calls upon EU Member States to individually uphold their legal obligations stemming from customary norms of international law to adopt a ban on the import of such produce.
The paper demonstrates that the adoption of restrictive measures against settlement produce would not contravene any provision of EU or national law, or any provision of the World Trade Organisation’s “General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)” Regulations.
In addition, the report calls upon relevant United Nations bodies to recall the precedent set by ‘conflict diamonds’ and to set up an effective mechanism to investigate and report on the relationship between trade in settlement produce and the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise.