Belgium-Israel Boycott: West Bank Israeli Settlements and Double Standards
Updated: Aug 12
The Belgium-Israel Boycott of West Bank Israeli Settlements—Why Does International Law Apparently Not Apply Equally?
Belgium has taken another step in its policy toward Israel. Under a new government measure, products originating from the West Bank may no longer be imported into Belgium. According to the Belgian government, this is a principled decision based on international law.
However, anyone who evaluates international conflicts using the same legal standards may struggle to avoid the conclusion that the Belgium-Israel boycott reflects a selective application of international law. Critics argue that Belgium is once again treating Israel differently from other countries, despite the fact that Israel has faced decades of terrorism and ongoing security threats that have led it to maintain control over disputed territories.
Why is Israel repeatedly singled out while comparable territorial disputes elsewhere rarely result in sanctions or import bans? This question lies at the heart of the debate surrounding the Belgium-Israel boycott and allegations of double standards in Israel.
The West Bank Is More Legally Complex Than Often Presented
In public discourse, the West Bank is commonly described as "occupied Palestinian territory." This has become the dominant position of the United Nations, the European Union, and many governments. Nevertheless, the legal reality is considerably more complex than this simple characterisation suggests.
The Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 divided the territory into Areas A, B, and C. Area A was placed under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, Area B under shared Israeli-Palestinian administration, and Area C remained under Israeli civil and military control until the parties could negotiate a permanent political settlement.
Israel therefore argues that final sovereignty over the territory has never been legally determined and can only be resolved through direct negotiations. Although this interpretation is not universally accepted internationally, it illustrates that the legal status of the West Bank remains the subject of significant debate rather than a settled legal question.
The discussion surrounding the Israeli settlements in the West Bank therefore continues to be one of the most disputed legal and political issues in the Middle East.
Israeli Settlements Are Located in the Historic Heartland of the Jewish People
What is internationally known as the West Bank has historically been called Judea and Samaria in Jewish history.
Cities such as Hebron, Shiloh, and Bet El have formed an essential part of Jewish civilization for more than three thousand years. Jewish presence in these areas did not begin in 1967, nor in 1948. It stretches back thousands of years.
This does not necessarily mean that every modern Israeli settlement is beyond political or legal debate. It does, however, demonstrate that the historical background is considerably more nuanced than the narrative of modern colonization alone.
Today, approximately two million Arab citizens live within Israel, while fewer than half a million Jews live in what many refer to as the Palestinian territories. Supporters of Israel often cite this demographic reality as evidence that the historical and political context is more complex than is frequently portrayed.
Gaza Demonstrated That Territorial Withdrawal Does Not Automatically Bring Peace
Supporters of further territorial concessions frequently argue that withdrawing from disputed territories is essential for peace. Israel has already carried out such a withdrawal before.
In 2005, Israel dismantled every Israeli settlement in Gaza and evacuated thousands of Jewish residents. Supporters of Israel describe the territory as having become entirely free of Jewish communities after thousands of years of Jewish historical presence.
One year later, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections. In 2007, the organization seized full control of Gaza through violent force.
Since then, Israel has experienced years of rocket attacks launched from Gaza against civilian communities. The attacks reached their deadliest point on October 7, 2023, when Hamas carried out a large-scale terrorist attack in which approximately 1,200 people were murdered and hundreds of others were taken hostage, triggering the ongoing Gaza war.
Many Israelis argue that these events demonstrate that territorial concessions alone cannot guarantee either peace or security. This experience continues to shape Israeli public opinion regarding both the Israeli settlements in the West Bank Israeli and future negotiations.
Belgium's Double Standards Toward Israel
The central question remains why Belgium has chosen to target Israel economically.
Turkey has controlled Northern Cyprus since 1974, a territory that the international community widely regards as occupied. Cyprus is, notably, a member of the European Union.
Morocco exercises control over Western Sahara, a territory whose sovereignty remains disputed under international law. Human rights organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about discrimination against the indigenous Sahrawi population and restrictions on their political rights.
China has been accused by numerous human rights organizations and several governments of carrying out large-scale repression in Xinjiang and Tibet. In Xinjiang, reports have documented the mass detention of Uyghurs, allegations of forced sterilization, extensive surveillance, and efforts to assimilate minority populations. Some governments and experts have characterized these actions as genocide, while others dispute that legal classification.
Russia continues to occupy parts of Georgia and, following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, controls approximately one-fifth of Ukrainian territory. Critics of Western policy point out that, after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its support for separatists in the Donbas, many Western governments, including those led by Angela Merkel and Barack Obama, responded primarily with diplomacy and sanctions rather than measures comparable to broad import bans targeting disputed territories.
Iran continues to support Hezbollah, an organisation designated as a terrorist group by many countries. Hezbollah maintains significant military and political influence in Lebanon and has contributed to years of instability along Israel's northern border.
Supporters of Israel ask why Belgium has not imposed comparable import bans on products originating from these disputed or occupied territories. If opposition to occupation is the guiding principle, critics argue that similar policies should have been implemented consistently across all comparable situations many years ago.
If international law is truly intended to serve as the guiding standard, one would expect similar conflicts to receive similar treatment. Critics therefore question why a democratic ally facing ongoing security threats is singled out while countries such as China, Morocco, Russia, and Turkey are not subjected to equivalent trade restrictions through Belgian policy.
Is This Really a Matter of Principle?
Belgium presents the boycott as a matter of human rights and international law. Yet selective enforcement inevitably raises difficult questions.
Why is Israel alone subjected to this specific economic measure while other long-running territorial disputes receive little or no comparable response?
Those who advocate universal legal standards should also apply those standards universally. Otherwise, critics argue, political preferences appear to outweigh legal principles. This criticism has become a central argument in debates surrounding the Belgium-Israel boycott, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and allegations of double standards toward Israel.
Double Standards Undermine Credibility
Israel is not a perfect country and, like any democracy, deserves criticism whenever its policies warrant it.
However, that criticism becomes less convincing when it appears to focus overwhelmingly on a single nation while comparable or more serious human rights concerns elsewhere receive far less political or economic attention.
Israel remains the Middle East's only liberal democracy according to many international democracy rankings. At the same time, authoritarian regimes with significantly poorer human rights records rarely face comparable economic measures from Belgium or the European Union.
Critics argue that this imbalance contributes to the perception that Israel is being held to a different standard than other nations. Some go further, claiming that such disproportionate treatment reflects political bias or even antisemitism. Others strongly reject that characterisation, maintaining that Belgium's policy is based solely on its interpretation of international law and human rights obligations.
Regardless of where one stands in this debate, the accusation of double standards has become an increasingly prominent theme in discussions about European policy toward the Jewish state.
Belgium has every sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy. Yet when those choices affect only Israel while leaving similar territorial conflicts largely untouched, it is understandable that many observers question whether the policy reflects consistent legal principles.
If international law is truly universal, it should not become an instrument applied primarily against one country. Equal principles deserve equal application. Only then can both international law and Europe's commitment to human rights maintain their credibility.
Image credits: KOBU Agency via Unsplash
