![Protesters call for boycott of Israel [file]](https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/q_auto/c_fill,g_faces:center,h_720,w_1280/268898 "Protesters call for boycott of Israel [file]")
UK Lawyers for Israel has warned the UK government that a proposed ban on trade with Israeli businesses in east Jerusalem and the West Bank would breach several of Britain’s international legal obligations.
Former trade minister Chris Bryant argued that the UK has a legal obligation not to “aid or assist” the Israeli settlements, saying that he is actively considering bans on the import and export of goods and services.
UKLFI has sent a briefing paper to Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and Legal Adviser to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office Sally Langrish challenging this legal analysis.
In the paper, UKLFI argued that there is no international law obligation requiring the UK to impose a general ban on private businesses from trading with Israeli businesses operating in the West Bank.
In fact, UKLFI warned that imposing the proposed bans could place the UK in breach of several international agreements.
Outright import or export ban explicitly violates UK-Israel Trade agreement
For example, the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. UKLFI wrote that an outright import or export ban would be the clearest possible form of such a restriction and would therefore be prima facie inconsistent with the agreement.
UKLFI also noted that the proposed ban would breach the UK’s obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), as well as the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
Additionally, the paper said that if the UK government sought to introduce a ban in response to alleged Israeli conduct, it would first be required under the agreement to refer the issue to the UK-Israel Joint Council and seek a mutually acceptable solution.
“A unilateral ban introduced without following that procedure would breach the TPA irrespective of the underlying merits of the policy,” UKLFI said.
Furthermore, it put forward the argument that a ban on trade could “harm the very Palestinian population it is supposedly intended to assist.”
Thousands of Palestinians are employed by Israeli businesses in areas of settlement in the West Bank, earning often twice the salaries paid by Palestinian employers.
UKLFI said that damaging these businesses would “jeopardize the livelihoods of many Palestinians, undermine the Palestinian economy, and further hinder a two-state solution.”
British companies could be caught between British and American laws
Finally, UKLFI warned that companies operating in Britain could find themselves caught between conflicting British and American laws.
US federal and state anti-boycott legislation can penalize participation in boycotts of businesses in territories governed by Israel. UKLFI said this could discourage US companies from investing or operating in Britain if compliance with the law exposed them to sanctions in the United States.
“Statements made on behalf of the UK government appear to be the opposite of the correct position,” Jonathan Turner, CEO of UKLFI, said.
“There is no international legal obligation requiring the UK to impose a blanket ban on trade with Israeli businesses in east Jerusalem [and] Judea and Samaria. On the contrary, our analysis shows that imposing such a ban could itself put the UK in breach of several binding international obligations, including the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement, the GATT, the GATS and, if the ban extends to Northern Ireland, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Brexit Agreement,” he said.
“We urge the government to reconsider this proposal in the light of the points made in our paper.”