On the 1st of March, a combination of representatives of the mainstream parties of the European Parliament; the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the European People’s Party, and the Socialists and Democrats, hosted a public hearing on an unprecedented topic. Following previously published research by ECCP on the question of Israeli military entities receiving funding from the European Union through the funding programme Horizon 2020, concerned MEPs consented to host this initiative to further investigate the legality of the funding in question. The aim of the hearing was to discuss the various questionable projects, investigate the possibility of dual-use technology, and to suggest possible ways of moving forward through an open discussion. Moderating the hearing was MEP Maria Arena, who was joined on the panel by MEP Ivo Vaigl, MEP Sirpa Pietikainen, Israeli economist Shir Hever, and Michael Deas from the Palestinian-led BNC.
The conference began with some introductions of the topic, and an explanation of the cause for concern. The “responsibility of the EU to uphold its legislation” seemed a key issue for Mr Vaigl and Ms Arena, and they both stressed how “important and worthwhile it is for us to address this topic”. Mr Hever provided an explanation of the economic situation, and Mr Vaigl agreed that the EU’s foreign policy should remain consistent with its trade policies. Mr Deas gave an explanation specifically surrounding the violations of international law in question, and made quite clear what exactly the problem was with funding weapons industries that are currently engaged in gross human rights violations. Following these introductions, the floor was opened, and MEP Marita Ulvskog gave some insight into the procedure that had preceded the finalisation of the plans for Horizon 2020.
Some important questions were raised such as the question of the clarity of the rules of the funding programme; whether or not dual use technology is expressly forbidden; if the current work of Horizon 2020 falls in line with the most recently referenced EU policies towards Israel, especially with regard to non-recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Palestinian territories; and which course of action should be taken in order to address any violations.
Following about an hour and half of a discussion, an observer of the hearing, Mr Ran Arad, from the Israeli Ministry of Economy spoke up. He told the room that Israel and the EU have been associated for twenty years now, and that the projects for Horizon 2020 were chosen based entirely on merit. He pointed out that there are many military companies in the world that receive funding, such as Saab, (etc.) and that as regards to dual use technology: it is the way of the world. He added also that some of the projects are obviously only for civilian purposes, so why put all Israeli projects in the same box?
Ms Ulvskog was the first to respond to Mr Arad’s comments. She first thanked him for speaking, as she mentioned that it is unusual to actually receive a response from an Israeli body about any of these issues. In her reply she referred to the comment about dual-use technology being ‘the way of the world’, she underlined the fact that this is not a conversation about the morality of the arms industry but about the specific companies that commit human rights violations. Ms Ulvskog also added that in reference to the Swedish company Saab, as a company that receives funding, the point is that Sweden is not occupying and bombing Finland.
Mr Hever agreed that there is a need to investigate further any participants in EU funded projects that may be committing violations, but reminded that Israel, as such an obvious example, would very much be a gateway into ensuring a transparent process.
Another observer of the conference was a former rapporteur to Horizon 2020 – MEP Christian Ehler, who defended the program. He stated that there is no evidence of military use, no research conducted in the Occupied Territory and that there have been no violations. Mr Ehler then spoke extensively about Israel’s position as a strategic partner of the European Union.
The hearing was concluded with some comments from the speakers. Ms Pietikainen had concluded her comments earlier with an expression of support for the further investigation of the topic, and Mr Vaigl suggested that the way to move forward was to ensure that as a strategic partner to the EU, Israel should be criticised as any country who leaves the boundaries of international law is, without it being interpreted as an attack. He also referenced the issue of the amount contains all of the criteria in order to define it as an apartheid. Mr Deas and Mr Hever made some concluding remarks and suggestions for the next steps to investigate more the EU’s support to Israeli military companies and Ms Arena finished the session by expressing her agreement with the general consensus that this issue was one that needed to be thoroughly investigated.
It is worthwhile noting that the ITRE Committee from the European Parliament, the Horizon 2020 department of the European Commission, the Israeli Mission to the EU, the Israeli Embassy, and the Delegation for Relations with Palestine were also represented.
On 23 November 2019, EuroPal Forum and Middle East Monitor co-hosted a conference at the Holiday Inn Bloomsbury in London on the relations between Europe and Palestine. A first of its kind, the conference brought together individuals at the forefront of discourse on Palestine in
As the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules that European Union countries must identify products made in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, MEMO and EuroPal Forum are hosting a conference to discuss the EU’s position on major issues related to the occupat