Let us say that a God-fearing London Jew has developed a craving for the kosher sesame seed candy halva. Let us also say that the man is a fervent Zionist as well as a human rights activist who refuses to buy products originating in the occupied territories. The Jew goes to the kosher food shelf at his neighborhood supermarket, and much to his delight, he finds a chunk of halva labeled “Achva, established 1929, Tel Aviv,” and below that, sees its kosher certification and the words “Under the supervision of the Jerusalem Supreme Jewish Court of Justice.” Just to be on the safe side, the man whips out his smartphone and Googles Achva. He finds phone and fax numbers with a 03 area code, designating central Israel, and also reads that the plant had “bought a plot of land” on which it built “one of the largest state of the art food manufacturing plants in Israel.” Our liberal halva aficionado breathes a sigh of relief. The packaging quite clearly states “Israel.” There's no sign of a settlement being involved. The Jew’s mind is put at ease. He puts the slab of halva in his shopping cart and returns home a happy man.

The average person would not know that the Achva factory is located in the Barkan Industrial Zone. How many Israelis, not to mention Europeans, know that this zone lies in the heart of the West Bank? The story of the halva company illustrates the absolute need for the Sept. 10 decision — adopted with a sweeping majority by the European Parliament — to clearly label products as originating in the settlements, effectively removing obstacles from the path of the blind. To be clear, no European or any other country has joined the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The parliament's decision in no way involves the boycott of the settlements or even discrimination against their products. Rather, it is meant to remind the citizens of Israel and of Europe that an industrial zone in the occupied territories is in no way the same as one located within a state’s, i.e., Israel's, sovereign territory.

Israel’s willingness to discuss the future of the territories proves that, even officially, it does not consider the Barkan industrial park to be part of the State of Israel, but situated on land whose future must be decided in negotiations. Proposed legislation by Knesset members on the extreme right to annex the "lands of Judea and Samaria,” or part of them, has been buried deep in the desk drawer of the Cabinet secretary. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself has for years been talking about a “two-state solution.” Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel who headed the negotiating team of Secretary of State John Kerry, nonetheless wondered aloud in a 2012 interview with me for Haaretz, “Where does Netanyahu think the Palestinian state will be established — on the moon?” The answer is obvious: Yes, certainly.

The originators of the European legislation assume that steps viewed as sanctions against Israel will bring the two-state vision closer. Experience shows that such moves do not impress the Israeli public, which suffers from a chronic tilt to the right. More than 10 years ago, the European Union demanded that Israel identify settlement products as such on export certificates when sold in member states. Such certificates are seen only by importers; the details would not be available to consumers, as they do not appear on product packaging. In an agreement signed and ratified in 2005, the Israeli government agreed to designate the place of production, for example Beersheba or Barkan, on certificates of origin for merchandise. Since then, products whose origins lie beyond the Green Line have been ineligible for lower tax tariffs, unlike products originating in Israel. What else has happened since?