European Countries & Israeli Settlements beyond the 1967 borders — Social Security, Tax, and other Treaty Implications

Olim from various European countries should be advised that depending on which country they made Aliyah from, there could be financial ramifications impacting their taxation and social security benefit payments, etc. (from their original home country) depending on where they choose to live in Israel. It is important that you do your research to determine the political status of the community that you choose to live in.
For example, a resident from the United Kingdom who is registered as living in Judea and Samaria is not considered as “living in Israel” by the English government and will not receive their National Insurance or social security benefit payments.

UN Resolution 2334

The resolution states that the establishment of settlements by Israel in the “occupied West Bank territories” since 1967, also referred to as “over the green line”, including parts of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, have no legal validity or diplomatic recognition.

Please note that in Israel, settlements are called Yishuvim (communities) or cities and towns etc. and the West Bank is officially referred to as Judea and Samaria and not considered occupied.
The European Council on Foreign Relations has created a Differentiation Tracker, which lists the various bilateral agreements between Israel and various European countries, and in addition, clarifies which areas in Israel are considered eligible for those agreements or not and if they comply with UN Resolution 2334.

There isn’t a single EU-wide “2334 rule” that automatically cuts off benefits. But several European governments have formally said that their bilateral treaties with Israel (including social-security and double-taxation treaties) do not apply in Israeli settlements (West Bank, incl. East Jerusalem, and often the Golan Heights). In practice, that can mean no treaty-based coordination of social-security rights and no treaty relief for taxes for their nationals who move there—even if some basic state pensions may still be payable under domestic law.

We have summarized below the relevant decisions for the main countries we service regarding taxation and social security benefits. We recommend that you use the link above to see more in-depth details as well as your specific country if not listed.
Please consult with our Helpdesk if you need more guidance or referral to a competent tax advisor or lawyer that specializes in the regulations of the country you made Aliyah from.

Countries with explicit statements that their bilateral treaties do not apply in the settlements/territories controlled by Israel since 1967

These governments have officially declared that their treaties with Israel (social security, tax, other agreements) only apply within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.

• Austria – Social security and tax treaties apply only to Israel proper
• Belgium – Settlement residents/companies cannot claim benefits from bilateral treaties (e.g., tax)
• Denmark – Confirms that tax and social security treaties don’t extend to settlements
• Ireland – Bilateral agreements with Israel explicitly exclude the occupied territories
• Switzerland – Swiss treaties do not extend beyond 1967 borders

Practical effect: Citizens of these countries who move to a settlement may lose treaty-based social-security coordination (export/aggregation of benefits) and lose DTA relief (risk of double taxation).

Countries with clear differentiation in practice

These countries apply EU-style “differentiation” — excluding settlements from trade preferences, research funding, procurement, or other official dealings. While they may not have a formal public ban on applying social-security/tax treaties to settlers, authorities treat settlements as outside Israel in many contexts.

• Germany – Explicitly distinguishes Israel vs. occupied territories in official policy; treaty coverage for settlement residents may be contested
• United Kingdom – Excludes settlement goods from tariff/trade preferences and cautions citizens/companies; treaty/social-security coverage for settlers not guaranteed

Practical effect: Nationals may face uncertainty or denial of treaty benefits if resident in a settlement; case-by-case rulings likely.

Countries with documented controversies / partial restrictions

Netherlands – Dutch authorities have in the past restricted certain pension payments to residents in West Bank settlements; cases handled individually by SVB/Belastingdienst.

Countries with ambiguous positions

These countries are listed in EU/ECFR differentiation trackers, but no clear public statement was found that they outright exclude settlements from bilateral treaties.

• Portugal – Flagged for review; no explicit public ban found
• Spain – Flagged for review; consistent condemnation of settlements, but no clear treaty exclusion statement.

Practical effect: Potential for uncertain treaty coverage if resident in a settlement; must confirm directly with national social-security and tax authorities.

Country with related tax/deduction ramifications

Norway – Ended tax deductions for donations to organizations supporting settlements. While not directly about social-security benefits, it shows financial/tax consequences tied to settlement activity

Overall Summary for Relevant Countries We Serve

• Most restrictive/clear non-application: Austria, Ireland, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark.
• Differentiation with practical impact: Germany, United Kingdom.
• Case-specific issues already seen: Netherlands.
• Unclear / must confirm case-by-case: Portugal, Spain.
• Other financial ramifications: Norway (donations).

For an individual moving to a settlement, the main risks are:

• Potential loss of social-security treaty benefits (pension aggregation, healthcare coverage, export of benefits).
• Loss of double-taxation treaty protection (exposure to double taxation).
• Other financial/tax consequences (trade, donations, investment restrictions).