- July 15, 2020: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk, A/HRC/44/60
"C. Products from Israeli Settlements
12. Several important developments with regards to labelling or banning of products
produced by Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory were noted since the
last report. On 12 November 2019, the European Court of Justice ruled [FN 14] that products from
Israeli settlements must indicate they are a product originating from a settlement, not as a
'product of Israel'. The ruling noted that the information on the products must enable the
consumers to make an informed choice, which also includes social and ethical considerations.
The Court underlined that the European Union has committed itself to the strict observance
of international law, including the UN Charter. The ruling by the European Court of Justice
follows a similar judgment [FN 15] of 29 June 2019 in Kattenburg v. Canada by the Federal Court
of Canada, in which the Court noted that labels of wines produced in West Bank settlements
stating to be 'Products of Israel' are 'false, misleading and deceptive [FN 16]. The Government of
Canada is appealing the decision.
13. The Irish Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill, No.6 of 2018 is a
proposed law that would make it an offense for a person 'to import or sell goods or services
originating in an occupied territory or to extract resources from an occupied territory in
certain circumstances' [FN 17]. In October 2019, the municipality of Oslo, Norway's capital,
adopted a decision to ban products from Israeli settlements and thus became the sixth
municipality in the country to effectively ban products and services linked to Israeli
settlements from public contracts [FN 18].
14. The Special Rapporteur also welcomes the release of a database on business
enterprises involved in certain activities relating to Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and
the West Bank, as an important initial step towards accountability and an end to impunity.
The Special Rapporteur calls for the database to become a living tool, with sufficient
resources to be updated annually."
- March 15, 2019: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk, A/HRC/40/73
"24. Of particular concern are the harmful practices employed by the political leadership
and State authorities in Israel to silence the criticism by human rights defenders of certain
government policies. Such measures include verbal attacks, disinformation campaigns and
delegitimization efforts, as well as the targeting of civil society funding sources. For
example, in the Money Trail reports, published in May 2018 and January 2019, the
Ministry of Strategic Affairs of Israel accused the European Union of granting financial aid
to organizations that allegedly promote boycotts against Israel. Those accused included
respected European and Palestinian organizations such as Al-Haq, the Palestinian Centre
for Human Rights and the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. The Ministry also alleged that several of the non-governmental organizations have ties to terrorism. In the report, a
list of statements or actions allegedly supporting boycotts of Israel purportedly made by
each organization is provided, followed by a screenshot showing the funding provided to
each organization by the European Union. The European Union strongly rejected the
allegations as unsubstantiated.
25. Further legitimization of the harm inflicted on human rights defenders is reflected in
recent legal developments. In the words of the Human Rights Defenders Fund in Israel,
"the damage to human rights organizations in Israel is being formally imposed and
institutionalized by parliamentary activity". The organization provides legal counselling
and representation to human rights defenders in an attempt to mitigate the curtailment of
the rights to freedom of association, expression and assembly. It cites as examples the antiboycott law of 2011 (which allows the State to withdraw benefits to organizations calling
for boycotts and does not distinguish between boycotts of goods produced in illegal Israeli
settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and boycotts of goods produced by
Israel), the non-governmental organization transparency law of 2016 (which requires Israeli
organizations that receive more than half of their public funding from abroad to disclose
this in all publications, a rule that predominately affects human rights organizations and has
the effect of singling them out, while organizations receiving private funding are not
affected) and the amendments of 2017 to the Entry into Israel Law (which restrict the entry
into Israel of individuals calling for boycotts of Israel and its settlements). These initiatives
have seriously curtailed the ability of human rights defenders to carry out their legitimate
work, provide protection and call for an end to violations of human rights in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory."
- March 16, 2017: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk, A/HRC/34/70
"4. The present report focuses on the human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Israel... The mandate of the Special Rapporteur thus focuses on the responsibilities of the occupying Power, although he notes that human rights violations by any State party or non-state actors are deplorable and will only hinder the prospects for peace.
...
55. The Knesset has recently been considering several proposed bills described below which aim to further restrict the social and political space for Israeli human rights organizations that work on issues dealing with the occupation. A list of these proposed statutes would include the following:
56. A bill, proposed by members of the governing coalition, that would eliminate the tax benefits for those Israeli residents who donate to any Israeli NGO that 'releases statements accusing the State of Israel of committing war crimes' and 'any institution that takes part in calls for a boycott of the State of Israel'...
...
60. In early March 2017, the Knesset enacted legislation that would deny an entry visa or residency permit to any non-citizen if the person has worked for an organization that has issued a public call to boycott the State of Israel or has agreed to participate in such a boycott. This would include anyone who focuses their boycott call only on the Israel settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This legislation appears to be the formalization of an earlier policy announced in August 2016 by the Israeli Minister of Public Security, Gi'lad Erdan, to deport international human rights defenders who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and to prevent others from entering the country. In December 2016, Dr. Isabel Apawo Phiri, a Malawi citizen who serves as the World Council of Churches Associate General Secretary, was denied entry and deported after arriving at Ben Gurion International Airport. Israeli authorities asserted that the denial of entry was due to her organization's alleged support for and involvement with the BDS Movement...
61. Palestinian human rights organizations have stated that these Knesset statutes and proposed bills adversely affect them as well. Palestinian human rights defenders working in occupied East Jerusalem invariably possess an Israeli residency permit, which they fear may be revoked by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior on the grounds that they have breached their loyalty to the State of Israel for advocating human rights issues, supporting boycotts or encouraging the acknowledgment of the 1947-49 Nakba... The impact is also being felt by Palestinian human rights defenders living in Israel on residency permits, such as Omar Barghouti, a co-founder of the BDS movement. Restrictions on his international travel were temporarily imposed in April 2016, just after the Israeli Intelligence and Transportation Minister, Yisrael Katz, had called for the 'targeted civil elimination' of BDS leaders with the help of Israeli intelligence."
- January 22, 2015: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Makarim Wibisono, A/HRC/28/78
"Indeed, there is a long list of pressing human rights issues that merit attention: from the expansion of settlements to settler violence; discriminatory policies in East Jerusalem; and the involvement of businesses in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to name but a few."
- January 13, 2014: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, A/HRC/25/67
"5. Corporate responsibility. Recent reports have underscored the potential implications for corporations and financial institutions that engage with and profit from Israeli settlements. The establishment and continued development of settlements is in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an assessment reinforced by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 2004 on the wall. Such an initiative has tried at all times to proceed cooperatively with the economic actors involved, and has acknowledged instances of compliance with international law and relevant United Nations guidelines and the encouraging recent indication of governmental and European Union reinforcement of these emergent obligations. This trend also converges with and reinforces the social mobilization of civil society in a variety of initiatives, especially the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign.
...
Corporate complicity in international crimes
39. Over the past two years, the Special Rapporteur focused attention on companies
involved in business and financial activities related to the Israeli settlement enterprise as
well as the possibility of corporate complicity in international crimes related to Israeli
settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
40. The effort to focus on business activities in the settlements was made, in part, to
bring a measure of accountability with respect to the emergent human rights obligations of
companies in conformity with international law and the Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights. The Special Rapporteur's intention was not only to provide a sound legal
basis upon which to assess the complicity of businesses in international crimes related to
the settlements, but also to clearly set out the risks and associated costs in terms of
reputation, as well as the potential legal consequences of doing business in the settlements.
41. The responses received from some of the 13 companies analysed in an earlier report
(A/67/379) were mixed. Nonetheless, there have been a number of recent developments in
relation to the involvement of other businesses involved in the settlements to indicate that
public pressure and media attention does bring some ethical dividends, and has encouraged
Governments to be more vigilant.
42. Some positive developments in this regard include Royal HaskoningDHV, a Dutch
company, which announced in September 2013 its decision to terminate a contract with the
Jerusalem Municipality to build a wastewater treatment plant in East Jerusalem. In
December, Vitens, a Dutch water utility company, decided to cut its ties with Mekorot, the
Israeli national water company, citing concerns in relation to the adherence of international
laws. Earlier, in August 2013, the Swedish-Norwegian bank Nordea excluded Cemex, one
of the companies taken up in the Special Rapporteur's earlier report, from its investment portfolio, due to its extraction of non-renewable natural resources from occupied Palestine. Such examples should lead the way for more countries and companies to follow suit, as well as alerting Governments to their responsibility to urge companies subject to their authority to act in accordance with international law.
43. While due diligence on the part of businesses is an inherent aspect of corporate
responsibility, Governments also have the obligation, as noted by the fact-finding mission
on settlements, to take measures to ensure that they do not recognize an unlawful situation
arising from the illegal activities of Israel. In this regard, the European Union guidelines
which establish that all agreements between Israel and the European Union for grants,
prizes and financial instruments funded by the European Union must now unequivocally
and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967
represents a step in the right direction.
44. The Special Rapporteur is also encouraged by the recent issuance by the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of guidelines for
businesses, which for the first time outline the risks of trading with Israeli settlements, and
specifically warn of the legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli
settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not
recognized as a legitimate part of the territory of Israel.
Trade with the settlements
45. The diligence shown by the European Union and some of its Member States
regarding the responsibility of businesses operating in occupied Palestine naturally leads to
the following question: Are the same human rights standards applied by countries when it
comes to trade relations with the settlements? If the statements issued by the European
Union and the United States protesting the expansion of settlements reiterate their illegality
and illegitimacy, then steps should be taken to ensure that related actions also reflect a
genuine commitment to human rights and respect for international law, for example by
ceasing trade with the settlements starting with a ban on imports of settlement produce.
46. While produce originating in the Israeli settlements is not entitled to benefit from
preferential tariff treatment under the European Union-Israel Association Agreement, fresh
agricultural produce exported from the settlements - but falsely labelled as "made in
Israel" - can still be found on many supermarket shelves across the European Union due
to the voluntary nature of labelling requirements. Considering the fact that the European
Union remains one of the most important trading partners for the settlements, with annual
exports worth $300 million, a ban on settlement produce would have a significant impact. It
should also not be forgotten that trade with settlements is linked to the violation of human
rights with respect to Palestinian communities denied access to fertile agricultural land,
water and other natural resources.
47. So long as illegal settlements are supported through trade, statements protesting the
expansion of settlements from the main trading partners of Israel will have little resonance
on the ground, and third party States will continue to be associated with the violation of
human rights in occupied Palestine.
...
81. In this, his final report, the Special Rapporteur takes the opportunity to
reiterate some past recommendations and add several new ones, namely that:
...
(d) The international community comprehensively investigate the business
activities of companies and financial institutions registered in their own respective
countries, which profit from the settlements of Israel and other unlawful Israeli
activities, and take appropriate action to end such practices and ensure appropriate
reparation for affected Palestinians. Member States should consider imposing a ban
on imports of settlement produce;
(e) Future investigations consider whether other foreign corporate
connections with unlawful occupation policies additional to settlements (e.g.
separation wall, Gaza blockade, house demolitions, excessive use of force) should not
be also deemed "problematic" under international law, and treated in a manner
analogous to the recommendations pertaining to settlements;..."
- September 16, 2013: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, A/HRC/23/21
"Businesses that profit from Israeli settlements
50. In his report submitted to the General Assembly in October 2012, the Special Rapporteur focused attention on business enterprises that profit from Israeli settlements. A central part of the report was the highlighting of a selection of businesses that had engaged in profit-making operations in relation to Israeli settlements. The Special Rapporteur noted his commitment to seeking clarification from these businesses and, in this respect, wishes to mention briefly the responses received from them. Additional recent developments in relation to businesses that profit from Israeli settlements are discussed thereafter.
51. Of the 13 businesses highlighted in the above-mentioned report, responses were received from Assa Abloy, Cemex, Dexia, G4S, Motorola and Volvo. No reply was received from Ahava, Caterpillar, Elbit Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Mehadrin, the Riwal Holding Group and Veolia Environment. It is disappointing that the latter six businesses decided that it was not necessary to respond to allegations of serious human rights and international humanitarian law abuses and violations. Hewlett-Packard and Veolia Environment did not respond despite the fact that they are signatories to the Global Compact, which implies a good faith commitment to adhere to the guidelines for corporate behaviour.
...
55. International attention is increasingly drawn to the activities of Israeli and international business enterprises involved in profit-making in occupied Palestine. The fact-finding mission mandated by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israeli settlements denoted a range of potential violations that stem from such activities.The fact-finding mission concluded that private entities had enabled, facilitated and profited from the construction and growth of the settlements, either directly or indirectly, and recommended that private companies assess the human rights impact of their activities, and take all necessary steps, including by terminating their business interests in the settlements, to ensure they did not have an adverse impact on the human rights of the Palestinian people. It also recommended that the Working Group on Business and Human Rights be seized of the matter.
56. The case for action against businesses profiting from the Israeli occupation has been strengthened by recent reports from a wide range of actors. A report compiled by 22 major international human rights and humanitarian organizations made explicit links between the settlements, businesses and Israel's critical trade with Europe. A leading Palestinian human rights organization, Al-Haq, reported on the responsibility of States members of the European Union for the huge settlement produce industry. Palestinian farming and civil society organizations collectively reported on the extent to which international trade with Israeli agricultural companies is destroying Palestinian agriculture. A confidential report by the European Union heads of mission to Jerusalem contained recommendations to ensure that European consumers are not misled into purchasing settlement products that are labelled as originating from Israel. In that report, the heads of mission also called for European Union citizens and companies to be informed of the financial and legal risks involved in purchasing property or providing services in Israeli settlements. Against this backdrop, according to media reports, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, wrote to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the European Union to call for enhanced efforts by Member States to enforce fully and effectively European Union labelling legislation vis-à-vis Israel. It is in this context of increasing awareness that the Special Rapporteur will continue to report on businesses that profit from Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestine.
57. The Special Rapporteur recommends that:
...
(h) The international community investigate the activities of businesses that profit from Israel's settlements, take appropriate action to end any activities in occupied Palestine and ensure appropriate reparation for Palestinians affected;..."
- May 25, 2012: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, A/HRC/20/32
"5. Several general conclusions emerged from meetings held in the course of the mission, especially those with members of the refugee communities, that have significant implications relating to the protection of the human rights of Palestinians living under occupation:
...
(d) Widespread support for reliance on various forms of non-violence as the most effective way to move the Palestinian struggle forward and, in this regard, significant support for civil society movements leading such initiatives, including reliance on the BDS campaign (boycott, divestment, and sanctions), pursuit of judicial remedies under universal jurisdiction in relation to alleged international crimes of Israeli political and military leaders, and efforts of humanitarian NGOs to challenge the blockade of Gaza;"
- June 7, 2010:
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, A/HRC/13/53/Rev.1
"Finally, the report welcomes a civil society-led
campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel for its occupation of Palestinian
territories.
...
Boycotts, divestments and sanctions
38. Operation Cast Lead shocked the conscience of humanity, giving rise to feelings of
solidarity around the world with the ordeal and struggle of the Palestinian people. These
feelings were intensified by the awareness that neither the neighbouring States nor the
United Nations, nor its most powerful Member States, were willing or able to protect the
Palestinian people and uphold their rights. The spectacle of a people under siege, as has
been the case now for over 30 months in the Gaza Strip, has deepened this sense that there
exists some responsibility for people everywhere to take appropriate, non-violent action.
Civil society's global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, aimed at
bringing non-violent economic and social pressure to bear to end the Israeli occupation, is
the outgrowth of these sentiments, and it has been expanding at a rapid rate during the last
few years. This sense of an anti-occupation movement of worldwide scope has come to
resemble in many respects the anti-apartheid movement that made important contributions
to the transformation of the political climate in South Africa in the late 1980s.
39. The boycott dimension of BDS takes many forms. For example, the boycott in
Europe of products produced by Israeli settlements; Britain has now allowed stores to put
stickers on food and other products reading "Israeli settlement produce". Soccer games and
other athletic events involving Israel have been cancelled or protests mounted. Similar
efforts have been made with respect to academic and cultural interaction. Artists and
performers have been asked to refuse invitations from Israel, or at least to contribute the
proceeds of a performance to Palestinian relief. Stores and companies around the world
have been boycotted based on their dealings for profit in the OPT. On the divestment front,
contracts have been terminated or bids not made. In addition, a growing number of
churches and universities are extending their efforts to invest in a spirit of social
responsibility, and are excluding companies that are perceived to be profiting from the
Israeli occupation. Individuals and NGOs have come out in support of BDS in increasing
numbers. It is a central battleground in the legitimacy war being waged by and on behalf of
Palestinians. It is also making use of persuasive and coercive non-violent means to secure
the human rights of Palestinians living under oppressive and unlawful conditions of
occupation that the actions of diplomacy or the authority of the organized international
community seem unable to correct. BDS represents the mobilized efforts of global civil
society to replace a regime of force with the rule of law in relation to the OPT.
Recommendations
40. The following recommendations drawn from the body of the report are
emphasized as matters of urgency:
...
(e) Consideration should be given to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions
campaign as a means of implementing human rights, including the right of self-determination,
and guidelines should be provided for such a campaign."