Categories Finance

EU’s Repeated Inaction on Israel: A Failed Response

  • 2026年4月28日
  • Estimated read time 11 min read
  • 0 comments

“Some of the highest-ranking officials in the Brussels bureaucracy appear to have no inhibitions; instead, they roll out red carpets for Israel whenever asked.”

In recent months, European nations have amplified their criticisms of Israel’s controversial actions, particularly as the consequences of its conflict with the US in the Middle East threaten global economic stability. Notably, even Germany, Israel’s most significant ally and long-standing supporter in the region, has shown signs of unease.

“Regarding Iran, I have become disillusioned,” Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated during a press conference in Berlin, referring to the US’s lack of an “exit strategy” and subsequent “humiliation” by Iran. “Initially, both the US and Israel believed this issue would be resolved quickly, and we must now accept that this is not the case.”

These comments come just a week after Merz expressed concerns about Israel’s ongoing illegal settlement expansions in the West Bank. Following a phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu, Merz’s spokesperson, Stefan Kornelius, released a statement conveying:

“In the conversation, the Chancellor expressed his deep concerns regarding developments in the Palestinian territories. There should be no de facto partial annexation of the West Bank.”

Even this gentle admonishment provoked a fierce backlash from Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich:

Just days later, Berlin was quick to make reparations…

At first glance, relations between Europe and Israel are more strained than ever, especially given the absence of Netanyahu’s close ally, Hungarian President Viktor Orban. In a sign of growing dissent, over a million EU citizens have signed a petition calling for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, compelling the EU Council to at least review the proposal.

“Israel is losing its last friends in Europe as the diplomatic rift widens across the continent,” wrote Itamar Eichner for Ynet Global, the English-language edition of Israel’s largest news outlet:

Even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a longtime ally of Israel, has chosen to downgrade a security and defense agreement with Jerusalem.

Countries including France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Slovenia and others have distanced themselves from us long ago. We are now facing a unique situation, unprecedented in which almost every European country is openly criticizing Israel. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez remarked today, in response to Spain’s withdrawal from the joint headquarters in Kiryat Gat, that “one state’s actions are fundamentally violating international law, and that state is the government of Israel.” Notably, the same Sanchez recently reopened Spain’s embassy in Tehran, while Spain currently lacks an ambassador in Israel.

The last bastion was Hungary, but that fortress fell on Sunday. Newly elected Prime Minister Peter Magyar has already stated he will evaluate every decision concerning Israel independently, showing no interest in continuing the policies of his predecessor, Viktor Orban.

However, when the EU had the opportunity to convert years of empty rhetoric into significant action last week, it hesitated.

Spain, Slovenia, and Ireland proposed suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Moreover, over 350 former diplomats, 60 NGOs, and a UN Special Rapporteur have also endorsed this suspension, reminding EU ministers of their obligation to “prevent genocide”—especially as Israel’s actions are now extending into southern Lebanon.

The association agreement, now entering its 26th year, establishes the framework for EU-Israel relations, granting Israel preferential access to EU markets. This is significant, as the EU is collectively Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 32% of Israel’s total trade, with 28% of its exports going to the EU. The agreement also facilitates cooperation in key areas such as diplomatic dialogue and research.

Additionally, this pact allows Israel’s involvement in the EU-funded Horizon program for research and innovation, which is set to provide 1.11 billion euros for Israeli companies, universities, and public organizations by 2027. Human rights organizations fear that some of these funds could facilitate militarization, oppression, and surveillance.

Even the EU Commission concluded last year that Israel may be violating the human rights clause of the agreement, particularly Article 2, which states that “cooperation is based on respect for human rights and democratic principles”. The justification for suspending the agreement is compelling, explicates Mamedov:

It is under this clause that Spain, Slovenia, and Ireland have suggested suspension. On April 21, EU foreign ministers convened in Luxembourg to deliberate on the proposal, yet they did not adopt the measure.

In a joint letter addressed to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, the foreign ministers of these countries cited specific breaches of Article 2 of the agreement.

The letter highlighted a newly passed Israeli law imposing the death penalty on Palestinians in military courts, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and settler violence in the West Bank allegedly occurring with impunity. The letter also pointed out “recurrent attacks against the religious freedoms of Muslims and Christians that challenge the status quo in the Holy Land.” Furthermore, concerning Lebanon, the ministers noted that Israeli military operations there were executed with “absolute disregard for international law and humanitarian principles.”

The representatives also reminded Kallas that a prior review conducted by the European External Action Service in June 2025 evidently established that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the agreement with the EU, and that the situation had “only deteriorated” since the review was conducted.

The documentation of systematic breaches in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon is clear.

By any standard, a suspension of the agreement should have been the next logical step.

However, that did not come to pass. Instead, Germany and Italy impeded any suspension, with Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul describing the proposal as “inappropriate,” advocating for more “critical, constructive dialogue” with Israel. His Italian counterpart, Antonio Tajani, indicated that the notion of suspension had been put aside.

The rationale provided to justify further inaction against Israel’s repeated war crimes emphasized the importance of exhaustively pursuing dialogue and exerting pressure on Israel within the framework, rather than dismantling it entirely. However, this argument falters, as Mamedov points out:

Article 2 is not a mere preamble—it’s a binding requirement. When the EU’s assessment determined that Israel was in breach, maintaining the agreement entails enforcing its stipulations, not indefinitely sidelining them.

Moreover, it has become increasingly evident that, without tangible pressure, Israel’s behavior under Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will remain unchanged…

The message the EU conveys is unmistakable: some violations are intolerable; others merely unfortunate. The more Israel escalates—whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon—the more the EU’s deference to Tel Aviv reveals the unhealthy nature of this relationship.

UN Special Rapporteur to Palestine Francesca Albanese articulates this in stark terms: markets take precedence over human lives. This echoes Lambert’s classic two rules of neoliberalism: Rule #1: Because markets. Rule #2: Go die!

The Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares warned that the “EU risks losing credibility if it fails to apply the same principles to Israel’s ongoing war in the Middle East as it does to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

For clarity, last week Russia faced the EU’s 20th round of sanctions since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In contrast, the EU has not imposed any sanctions on Israeli settlements in the region, a commitment it has promised to uphold for years. Additionally, reader DJG Reality Star highlights in the comments below that Albares’ reference to “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” neglects several crucial historical points:

NATO expansion? Minsk I, Minsk II? The OSCE reports indicating the Kiev government’s disregard for right-wing militias involved in torture, murder, and church confiscation? Victoria and cookies and “Fuck the EU”?

Nonetheless, the EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, appears to disagree with Albares regarding the EU’s credibility concerning Israel. Last week, she claimed that the EU has been the world’s most robust supporter of the Palestinian people—just a day before EU foreign ministers once more refused to hold Israel accountable for its genocidal actions against the Palestinian people.

The following day, Kallas’ grasp of reality seemed to diminish even further as she asserted that the EU’s international credibility is actually improving under her leadership:

In the past week, Kallas’ superior, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has further enhanced the EU’s international credibility by cautioning against the need to safeguard Europe from influences not only from Russia and China but also NATO ally Turkey—ironically shortly after Naftali Bennett, former Israeli premier, referred to Turkey as the “next Iran.”

Not only do von der Leyen and Kallas appear to be sabotaging the bloc’s relationships with all three of the world’s major powers, but they also seem to follow directives from Tel Aviv:

While von der Leyen warns of the malign influence of China, Russia, and Turkey on Europe, not a word has been said about Israeli influence—despite an alleged attempt weeks ago by Israeli operatives to meddle in Slovenian elections. A recent revelation by David Cronin from the Electronic Intifada indicates that Israeli influence over EU policy may be even stronger than previously assumed:

A document obtained through a freedom of information request reveals that more than two years after the Gaza genocide began, the Israel lobby continues to dictate the narrative followed by key Brussels officials.

Hélène Le Gal, head of the Middle East division in the EU’s diplomatic service, appears particularly amenable to being guided by outside interests.

The document indicates that Le Gal has agreed to host a “strategic dialogue” organized jointly by the diplomatic branch and the pro-Israel group called the European Leadership Network (Elnet). Scheduled for May 12-13, the invitation indicates the event will include “30 high-level policy and opinion makers—15 from the EU and 15 from Israel.”

Remarkably, the discussions will be “entirely” off-the-record, implying that the public will be kept in ignorance about matters that should be open to scrutiny.

Cronin sums up the situation by stating that although some of the most prominent figures in Brussels lack clear restrictions, they readily accommodate the demands of Israeli advocates.

This behavior—facilitating Israel’s severe war crimes—does not prevent the EU from attempting to maintain a position of moral superiority by: a) escalating its public denunciations of Israel’s actions while simultaneously b) highlighting the minuscule amounts of material support it offers to the oppressed Palestinian population. Francesca Albanese underscores that such appearances are “simply intolerable.”

The dynamic between the EU and Israel raises important moral and ethical considerations. As the situation remains tense, the international community calls for concrete action rather than empty gestures. The ongoing crisis necessitates scrutiny and accountability.

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

Centrist Victory in California, AIPAC Defeat in New Jersey, Platner Under Fire

The Impact of Propaganda and Misinformation on Humanitarian Efforts

A Modern Food Philosophy