A growing number of European governments are moving to restrict trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, though the effort remains fragmented rather than coordinated. Some countries have enacted or formally adopted measures, while others have announced plans, begun implementation processes or are considering national or European restrictions.
Status note: This tracker distinguishes between an enacted or operative restriction, a formal government decision that still requires implementation, and a proposal or policy position. Those stages should not be treated as equivalent.
Countries With Enacted or Formally Adopted Measures
Netherlands: Update, October 2, 2026: Dutch Customs states that the restriction took effect on September 22, 2026. It prohibits importing, buying or selling goods from unlawful Israeli settlements for the Dutch market, as well as trading or brokerage services and circumvention. Customs transit to another EU member state and customs warehousing remain subject to the exceptions described in the guidance. This measure does not change trade relations with Israel within its internationally recognised 1967 borders. The Dutch legislative record provides the formal status trail.
Spain: Spain has a formal national import prohibition for products originating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Article 3 of Royal Decree-Law 10/2025 provides the operative prohibition. The official BOE text sets out the legal measure.
Ireland: Ireland enacted the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Act 2026 on July 23, 2026. The President of Ireland's official 2026 legislation record lists the Act as signed on that date. Enactment and commencement should still be distinguished when describing whether particular provisions are operational.
Belgium: Government Decision, Implementation Process
Belgium: Belgium's federal government has formally agreed that the country will introduce a national ban on imports from Israeli settlements, pending broader action at European Union level. However, the available Belgian government record distinguishes that political decision from the legal steps required to make the import prohibition operational.
The Belgian Foreign Ministry's account of the federal government agreement states that Belgium will implement a national ban on imports from Israeli settlements.
The government decision also envisaged further implementation work, including preparation of the legal measures required to establish and enforce the national import prohibition.
Belgium should therefore be distinguished from countries for which this tracker can identify an already operative import prohibition in a specific legal instrument. The verified material establishes a formal Belgian government decision to introduce the restriction and an implementation process, but this tracker does not describe the prohibition as already legally operative unless the relevant implementing instrument can be identified.
A September 8, 2026 joint foreign-ministers' statement separately welcomed action already taken by Belgium, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and Norway. Belgium was referenced in that statement but was not one of its listed signatories.
Countries That Have Announced Plans
Norway: Norway published a proposal for legislation banning trade with Israeli settlements and opened it for public consultation. The official government notice describes the measure as a proposed bill rather than an enacted prohibition. The Norwegian government's notice records that status.
Countries Pursuing or Considering Restrictions
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom was among the governments that signed the September 8 joint statement supporting further action concerning trade with Israeli settlements. No enacted UK national import prohibition is identified in the verified source set used for this tracker. The joint statement records the government's position.
Finland: Finland was a signatory to the September 8 joint statement supporting consideration of national and European measures concerning trade with Israeli settlements. The statement is evidence of a policy position, not by itself evidence of an enacted Finnish national import prohibition. The joint statement records that position.
France and Sweden: France and Sweden were also among the signatories to the September 8 joint statement. Their participation establishes support for considering or pursuing measures at national and/or European level, but the statement itself does not establish that either country had enacted a unilateral national import prohibition. The joint statement provides the relevant policy position.
Why the European Union Has Not Acted as a Bloc
European governments have also debated whether restrictions should be pursued collectively at EU level rather than through separate national measures. The national actions and proposals in this tracker show that governments have not all reached the same legal or policy stage.
A national measure adopted by one member state should therefore not be described as an EU-wide prohibition. Likewise, political support for European action does not establish that a binding bloc-wide restriction has entered into force.
The Legal Context Behind the Restrictions
Several governments have linked their policies to the International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion concerning Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory.
The International Court of Justice case record provides the official material relating to that advisory proceeding.
The court's advisory opinion addressed legal consequences for states arising from the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory. Governments supporting settlement-related trade restrictions have cited international-law considerations when explaining their policies.
The advisory opinion itself should be distinguished from each country's domestic legal process. A national import restriction still depends on the legislation, decree or other legal mechanism adopted within that jurisdiction.
Israel rejects characterisations of its settlement policy and the legal and political conclusions advanced by governments supporting these restrictions. The existence of that dispute does not change the need to describe each country's measure according to its actual legal status.
What Counts as a Settlement Good
The measures discussed here concern goods originating in Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory rather than trade with Israel generally.
Depending on the individual legal instrument, affected products can include agricultural goods and other products originating in settlements. The exact scope should be determined from the applicable national measure rather than assumed to be identical across every country.
A restriction targeting settlement-origin goods therefore should not automatically be described as a general prohibition on imports from Israel.
Why the Legal Status of Each Country Matters
There is an important difference between announcing support for a restriction, formally deciding to introduce one, passing legislation and bringing that legislation into operation.
Belgium illustrates that distinction. Its federal government has committed to introducing a national import ban and begun the implementation process, but that status should not be presented as identical to an already operative prohibition supported by a specific implementing legal instrument.
Norway's proposal likewise remains distinct from enacted legislation, while statements by governments such as the United Kingdom, Finland, France and Sweden establish policy positions without themselves creating national import bans.
This tracker therefore classifies countries according to the strongest legal or official status that can be supported by the cited material rather than grouping every government supporting restrictions into a single category.
Update, October 2, 2026: This tracker has been revised to distinguish more clearly between enacted or operative restrictions, formal government decisions awaiting implementation, proposed legislation and policy positions. Belgium has been moved out of the enacted-measures grouping because the verified material establishes a formal decision and implementation process but does not, on its own, establish an already operative Belgian import prohibition. The September 8 joint statement has also been clarified: Belgium was referenced as a country whose action was welcomed, but it was not one of the statement's listed signatories.
