US begins to label settlement products as ‘Made in Israel’
US Customs and Border Protection on Wednesday said an order requiring goods made in Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank to be labeled as “Made in Israel” has come into effect.
The policy shift was announced by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in November following an unprecedented visit to a West Bank settlement, where he visited a winery. It’s unclear whether the incoming Biden administration will uphold the order.
Since 1995, US policy has required products made in the West Bank and Gaza to be labeled as such. That directive was republished in 2016 by the Obama administration, which warned that labeling goods as “made in Israel” could lead to fines. Prior to the Oslo Accords, however, all products manufactured in these areas were required to mention Israel in their label when exporting to the United States.
With Pompeo’s newly announced rules, which he said were “consistent with our reality-based foreign policy approach,” all producers within areas where Israel exercises authority — most notably Area C under the Oslo Accords – will be required to mark goods as Israeli-made.
“This document notifies the public that, for country of origin marking purposes, imported goods produced in the West Bank, specifically in Area C under the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (the Oslo Accords), signed on September 28, 1995, and the area known as ‘H2’ under the Israeli-Palestinian Protocol Concerning Redeployment in Hebron and Related Documents (the Hebron Protocol), signed January 17, 1997, must be marked to indicate their origin as ‘Israel,’ ‘Product of Israel,’ or ‘Made in Israel,'” the US Customs notice said.
Goods manufactured in Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank will be marked as made in the West Bank, while Gaza-produced items must indicate they were made in the Palestinian coastal enclave, the order added, rejecting any joint “West Bank/Gaza” labels that had been permitted since 1997.
The new guidelines were effective as of Wednesday, though importers were given a 90-day grace period to implement the changes.
Perhaps the most important apart in the Israel labelling rule published today: "@StateDept
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) December 24, 2020
further advised that it recognizes that Israel has disengaged from Gaza and that Gaza and the West Bank are politically and administratively separate and should be treated accordingly."
Eugene Kontorovich: Trump Was Right To Recognize Moroccan Sovereignty Over Western Sahara
The Trump administration has achieved yet another success in brokering peace between Israel and the Islamic world, with the recent announcement of normalized relations between Israel and Morocco. The U.S. benefits greatly from good relations between two of its long-standing Middle East allies—and as part of the arrangement, the U.S. agreed to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara. There is nothing unusual about adding "sweeteners" to such deals: The Carter administration, for example, made Egypt one of the largest non-NATO recipients of U.S. aid as a result of the Camp David Accords between Cairo and Jerusalem.The Collapse of Palestinian Grand Strategy
But the Western Saharan recognition has come under attack from those who had long supported unsuccessful policies for resolving the conflict. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton and Former Secretary of State James Baker both penned op-eds lambasting President Trump's move. These criticisms claim that the recognition is a radical departure from both U.S. policy and international law norms. Neither claim has any basis.
First, some background. Western Sahara had never been an independent state; rather, it was a Spanish colony until 1975, when Spanish rule crumbled at the end of the Franco regime. Morocco promptly took control of Western Sahara as the Spanish were on their way out, leading to a three-way conflict with Mauritania and the Algeria-backed Polisario guerrilla group. Morocco prevailed and has administered the territory as its "southern provinces" ever since.
The United Nations has described Morocco's presence as an "occupation" in a couple of resolutions. But much of the international community, including the United States, has taken a more ambiguous position, describing the territory as "disputed" between Morocco and the Polisario, which claims to govern an independent state that it calls the Sahrawi Arabic Democratic Republic. Newsweek subscription offers >
The double-barreled attack on the deal by Baker and Bolton seems designed to give an opening for the Biden administration to renege on the deal, and to cite senior Republican officials as support. But Baker and Bolton are hardly disinterested in this matter. Baker had served as a UN special envoy for the Western Sahara issue and was the author of the latest failed peace plan for the area: a "two-state solution" known as the Baker Plan. Bolton worked for Baker on these issues at the State Department.
The Palestinian quest for an internationally imposed “solution,” which would not require them to negotiate a compromise deal with Israel, has failed. Palestinian leaders may attempt this again after Joe Biden becomes US president, but this will fail yet again, since the collapse of their past strategy is due to much more than the policies of the Trump Administration. Indeed, evolving regional and global realities allow for a new Israeli peace initiative, which can preserve the underlying principles of the Trump outline for peace.JINSA PodCast: Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions
During the US presidential transition period, Israel faces a challenge and an opportunity regarding the Palestinians. The challenge may result from a Palestinian attempt to co-opt the incoming US Administration and revive its “grand strategy” of international coercion against Israel. However, the underlying assumptions of that strategy are now largely passe. The attempt to isolate Israel and boycott it in the international community, and thus force it into surrender, have thoroughly failed. This is not simply the result of President Trump’s policies (although they contributed to this outcome). Palestinian failures, rather, reflect a profoundly changed landscape, regionally and globally.
Foundational aspects of the regional order have changed. There has been a breakthrough towards peace and normalization with three Arab countries. Moreover, the Arab League (under Egypt’s guidance) refused to consider the Palestinian complaint against “normalizers” and the Abraham Accords. Even European position(s) towards Israel are showing signs of reconsideration, against the background of a violent challenge by Islamist terror.
Rather than reduce the prospects for peace and stability, these developments make them more likely. Many countries around the world want to engage with Israel. Consequently, the Palestinians would be wrong to assume that their strategy of isolating Israel can be revived with Trump’s departure.
What makes for a good sanctions regime? Is regime change a reasonable policy goal for a sanctions regime? Does COVID-19 change the calculus for economic sanctions? What changes to the U.S. sanctions regime, if any, might we expect during the transition from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration with regards to Iran, Russia, and China? The Hon. Stephen Rademaker, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, joins The National Security Digest to offer his assessment of the U.S. sanctions approach. Mr. Rademaker currently serves as Senior Of Counsel at Covington in D.C, as well as a Senior Advisor to JINSA’s Gemunder Center and a Member of JINSA’s Iran Policy Project.















