An EU report concluded Israel might be breaching human rights in Gaza. The bloc could suspend a major trade deal, but it won’t. A brief hardening towards Israel appears to have dissipated after recent tensions with Iran.

In the wake of a damning EU review of Israel’s human rights record in Gaza, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez slammed his colleagues for not moving to suspend a trade deal with Israel despite what he called “the catastrophic situation of genocide.”

More than 55,000 Palestinians have been killed in the enclave over more than 18 months of Israeli bombardment, according to Hamas-run Gazan authorities. Israel vehemently denies accusations of genocide, maintaining that it is at war with the ruling militant Islamist group Hamas following a massive terror attack on Israeli territory in 2023.

In a report distributed to the member states last week based on the findings and allegations of major international bodies, the European External Action Service found “indications” that Israel was breaching its duty to respect to human rights.

Sanchez: outspoken but outnumbered Image: Yves Herman/REUTERS

The document, not public but made available to DW, highlighted possible indiscriminate attacks affecting the civilian population, Israel’s blockade on food and medicine plus attacks on medical facilities as potential breaches. “There are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations,” the report concluded.

Arriving at an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday, Sanchez said it was “more than obvious that Israel is violating Article 2 of the EU-Israel agreement.”

“We have had 18 sanctions packages against Russia for its aggression [in Ukraine], and Europe, with its double standards, is not capable of suspending an association agreement,” Sanchez said.

Suspension off the cards

Spain and Ireland are isolated among the 27 EU states in openly calling for the suspension of the deal in full, a move that would require unanimity and has therefore never been a serious prospect. Greece, Germany, Hungary, Austria, and Bulgaria remain close allies of Israel.

Berlin in particular has made its views clear, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz describing the move as “out of the question with the federal [German] government.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the EU review as an outrage Image: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/AFP

Doing so would be a major commercial disruption, particularly for Israel, which buys a third of its goods from the EU. The accord, in force since 2000, covers everything from the two sides trading relationship – worth $50 billion each year for goods alone – up to political dialogue, and cooperation on research and technology.

Another possibility, requiring only a qualified majority of 15 out of 27, would be the partial suspension of the deal, for example, its provisions on free trade or shutting Israel out of EU research funding programme Horizon. But multiple diplomatic sources told DW that the numbers weren’t there either.

Top EU diplomat: Goal not to ‘punish Israel’

Earlier in the week, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas officially presented the document to the member states for a first debate, already making clear there would be no immediate moves.

“It is not intended to punish Israel, but to trigger concrete improvements for the people and the lives of people in Gaza,” she said on Monday. “If the situation does not improve, then we can also discuss further measures and come back to this in July.”

On Thursday, EU leaders at the summit only “took note” of the report in their joint statement, making no reference to potential rights breaches, and said ministers should revisit the topic next month. At the same time, the 27 leaders deplored the “dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, the unacceptable number of civilian casualties and the levels of starvation.”

‘No foreign policy topic’ more divisive than Israel

Spain has also been calling for an EU embargo on the sale of arms to Israel, with Germany one of the country’s major suppliers, as well as more sanctions. However, Berlin recently reaffirmed it would keep selling Israel weapons, and without Germany on board, the move wouldn’t have much impact.

A few other countries, including Belgium, France and Sweden, have supported imposing additional EU sanctions on Israel, but these too require unanimity.

EU Council Summit dominated by trade issues, armed conflicts To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Echoing Sanchez, Irish leader Michael Martin said he would tell his colleagues at the summit that “the people of Europe find it incomprehensible that Europe does not seem to be in a position to put pressure on Israel.”

According to Lisa Musiol of conflict resolution think tank Crisis Group, maximum pressure would entail an arms embargo, large-scale sanctions against members of the government or a full suspension of the Association Agreement.

“But almost no European leader speaks about such measures,” Musiol told DW in a written statement. “There is probably no foreign policy topic within the EU where member states are so divided.”

Iran tensions push member states back to old positions

Last month, it looked for a brief moment like the EU was indeed collectively hardening its stance. The Dutch proposed the review of the Association Agreement, and the move was greenlit by a majority of EU states on May 20.

This came shortly after France, Britain and Canada issued a rare joint statement condemning Israel’s latest offensive in Gaza and described its restrictions on aid as being “wholly disproportionate,” and possibly in breach of international humanitarian law.

There was a distinctive feeling that policy could be shifting.

Musiol of Crisis Group said that that window seemed now to have closed. “It seems that after the recent escalation between Israel and Iran, many member states have fallen into their old positions,” she said.

“Even those member states that have traditionally been strong supporters of Israel but had started to be more outspoken or critical, such as Germany or Italy, have changed their tone.”

Edited by: Andreas Illmer

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you’ve seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

In October 2024, the US gave Israel 30 days to improve humanitarian aid access to Gaza or risk having some US military assistance cut off. Not only was there no improvement, but the volume of aid decreased during this period.

And yet, Israel faced no consequences. At a time when Israel does not even feel the need to respond to the minimal demands of the US, its main diplomatic and military supporter, there is no reason to believe the country’s leaders are concerned about European politicians criticising it.

Still, with the renewal of the European Commission at the end of this month, the Israeli government will be happy to see EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell depart the scene. After all, Borrell represented one of the few voices in top European political positions calling for decisive action to stop Israel’s war on Gaza.

A year of clashes in the EU

During the last year, Borrell often clashed with the EU member states that are more supportive of Israel (such as Germany, Austria, Hungary, or the Czech Republic). President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who will soon start her second mandate, usually aligned herself with this group of countries. The latest episode in this series of internal clashes occurred last week during the last meeting of EU foreign affairs ministers headed by Borrell.

The core of the dispute was not new. In February, Ireland and Spain requested that the European Commission review the EU–Israel Association Agreement and determine whether Israel was complying with its obligations. The suspension of the agreement, which contains a human rights clause, would have significant consequences for Tel Aviv. The bilateral framework provides the Israeli economy with privileged access to the EU market, the destination of around 30% of its exports.

More than nine months have passed since Ireland and Spain demanded a review of the association agreement. Last month, Spanish President Pedro Sánchez asked for a response to the petition to suspend the agreement “if it is established, as everything suggests, that human rights are being violated”. However, there has been no response from von der Leyen’s Commission.

This is the context in which Borrell last week brought a proposal to the EU foreign affairs ministers that he knew would be rejected. The Spanish diplomat suggested the EU should halt its institutional political dialogue with Israel to apply pressure on the country to comply with international law. This would have been a milder measure than the suspension of the association agreement, but one that did not need the Commission acting on the petition by Ireland and Spain.

Borrell’s proposal was rejected, as was his plan to ban the import of products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Many European diplomats considered Borrell to have forced an unnecessarily tense situation. Some sources even suggested that Borrell only wanted to cultivate his own personal image before leaving the position of EU foreign policy chief. It is far more likely that what motivated Borrell was simply an increasing frustration with the EU’s inaction regarding Israel’s war on Gaza.

As he recently noted in his personal blog, so far, “Israel has been spared from any meaningful consequences”. The principle of unanimity for major foreign policy decisions in the EU, together with the profound internal divisions on how to deal with Israel, are responsible for this failure to act. In front of this inactivity, some EU countries have taken independent steps. In May, Ireland, Spain, and Slovenia recognised Palestine as a state, together with Norway, which is not an EU member.

Outgoing EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell represented one of the few voices in top European political positions calling for decisive action to stop Israel’s wars on Gaza and Lebanon. [Getty]

A change of guard in EU diplomacy

Borrell will soon be replaced as EU foreign policy chief by Kaja Kallas, the former prime minister of Estonia. Regarding the Ukraine war, there will not probably be significant differences between Borrell and Kallas. In the hotly debated topic of whether EU members should allow Ukraine to strike inside Russia with the weapons they provide, both Borrell and Kallas favour these strikes.

However, Borrell and Kallas do not see eye to eye when it comes to the Middle East. Hugh Lovatt, an expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, noted that he expects Kallas “to be less focused on Gaza and less proactive in pushing member states to take action”.

Borrell has often expressed his concern that the EU is facilitating accusations of double standards because it strongly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but is indecisive in responding to Israel’s war on Gaza. Kallas, meanwhile, does not appear to believe these accusations are well-grounded. During her confirmation hearing at the European Parliament, Kallas had to answer the questions of parliamentarians who pointed out that the EU’s defence of human rights and international law is not consistently applied in both Ukraine and Gaza.

After a parliamentarian asked Kallas how she planned to face this incongruence, she countered accusations of double standards by noting that the EU is “the biggest donor of the Palestinian Authority”. She added that “we are the biggest donor to helping the Palestinian people in that region and we try to continue to do so”.

Related Israeli ethnic cleansing nears completion in northern Gaza Analysis

These statements ignore at least two things. First, support for the Palestinian Authority (PA) hardly matters in a discussion about double standards. The PA has no political power in Gaza since the Hamas takeover in 2007. Second, the abysmal humanitarian situation in Gaza has little to do with a lack of funds for humanitarian aid.

The problem, instead, is Israel’s ongoing military operations and the systematic denial of humanitarian aid in Gaza that could alleviate the suffering of its citizens. The small quantities of aid that are allowed into Gaza by the Israeli authorities are increasingly looted by armed gangs in front of the passivity, if not complicity, of Israeli soldiers.

It is not aid, but political will to apply leverage on Israel, that could have an impact on Tel Aviv. So far, at least 44,056 Gazans have been killed and 104,268 have been wounded since 7 October 2023, when Hamas attacked southern Israel killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostages. The number of indirect deaths in Gaza as a result of the conflict and lack of humanitarian aid will probably be higher than violent deaths.

A lack of political will in Europe

The necessary political will to pressure Israel to change course is nowhere to be seen in many European capitals. This was once again manifest last week when the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif – who is presumed dead. The ICC accuses the three men of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

All EU countries are parties to the ICC and therefore, bound by the court’s decisions. However, EU heavyweights such as France, Italy, and Germany (the second largest provider of weapons to Israel after the US) did not openly commit themselves to arresting Netanyahu and Gallant if they set foot in their countries. Viktor Orban’s Hungary, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, went one step further and invited Netanyahu to visit the country as soon as he wished.

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who will soon start her second mandate, has faced criticism from lawmakers and diplomats for not calling on Israel to respect international law. [Getty]

In September, before any ceasefire in Gaza could materialise, the conflict expanded to Lebanon, where 3,544 people have been killed and more than 15,000 injured. Hezbollah and the Israeli army had been exchanging fire for almost one year before Israel decided to invade Lebanon’s south and conduct intensive aerial bombardments across the country.

Sixteen EU countries contribute troops to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), stationed in southern Lebanon. Some of these troops have been wounded in Israeli attacks, which motivated criticism by some EU countries (such as Austria and Slovakia) that had been among the less vocal in condemning Israel for its war on Gaza. But as long as Israel avoids casualties among European troops, Tel Aviv should be relatively safe from any meaningful European actions to stop the Israeli incursion into Lebanon.

France, which had traditionally been an influential actor in Lebanon as the former colonial power, has been relegated from mediation efforts as it does not have powerful interlocutors in the Israeli government and Hezbollah. France has been losing ground in the country for some time now, and the situation is further complicated by President Emmanuel Macron’s weak internal position and the inexperience of the current foreign minister, who has been in the job for only two months.

Related Why UNIFIL are in the crosshairs of Israel’s war on Lebanon Analysis

The EU’s inconsistent approach to the Middle East

Last year, under the leadership of von der Leyen, the EU engaged in a new round of deals to externalise migration control. Between July 2023 and May 2024, the EU reached a series of agreements with Tunisia, Mauritania, Egypt, and Lebanon in which these countries receive EU funds in exchange for halting migrants and asylum seekers in their way to Europe.

Natalie Tocci, director of the Italian think tank Istituto Affari Internazionali, remarked how, when it comes to the global south, Europe views “much of the world as nothing but a source of unwanted migrants to be kept out”. In the case of Tunisia, for instance, EU-funded guards have allegedly been raping migrant women and beating children.

Meanwhile, the agreement with Lebanon, signed only six months ago, provided the country with around €736 million to care for its refugee population (most of which is Syrian) and improve border and migration control. Such an agreement, however, requires a modicum of internal stability to be implemented.

The Lebanese government estimates that over one million people in Lebanon have been displaced by the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon and the airstrikes across the country. Close to 500,000 people have crossed from Lebanon into Syria, in a sign of their desperation. As long as Lebanon continues to be ravaged by war, it will produce refugees of its own and can hardly be in a position to act as the EU’s policeman.

Europe’s double standards

In the new European Parliament elected in June 2024, the centre-right and the far-right hold a majority that they have already used in some votes. The move to the right has also found its way into the composition of the new European Commission. Some far-right parties, especially the Brothers of Italy, the party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have been accepted into the European mainstream by supporting Ukraine’s war effort. The EU is increasingly looking inwards and becoming more militarised with the appointment of the first defence commissioner.

The EU might want to keep migrants and refugees away through migration control agreements, ignore the plight of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians, and all the while continue to emphasise the need to support Ukraine and isolate Russia. But this will simply not work.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU asked political leaders in the global south to apply sanctions against Russia. This was normally something they would not want to do, arguing that the conflict was a European war and that adopting sanctions would hurt them economically at a time of rising food and energy prices.

These days, global south leaders do not need to elaborate their argument. They can simply ask why they should adopt sanctions against Russia when the EU does not take the same course of action with Israel.

Marc Martorell Junyent is a graduate of International Relations and holds an MA in Comparative and Middle East Politics and Society from the University of Tübingen (Germany). He has been published in the LSE Middle East Blog, Responsible Statecraft, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), Jacobin, and Inkstick

Follow him on Twitter: @MarcMartorell3

Protests erupted in several parts of Kashmir against Israel’s attack on Iran on Friday, with Valley leaders condemning the “unprovoked” strike and calling out the “double standard” of the West in dealing with the Jewish nation.

The main protest in central Kashmir’s Budgam was led by cleric Aga Syed Hassan, who said Iran was specifically targeted for its principled stand on Gaza and Palestine.

ADVERTISEMENT

The protesters raised slogans against Israel and feared the attack could escalate into a regional war.

Chief minister Omar Abdullah pointed to the alleged western hypocrisy when it came to Israel.

“As far as I know, Iran gave no reason to Israel to launch an attack. Israel calls them preemptive strikes to attack a country. If world powers remain silent on it, it will be tragic,” he said.

Omar said Israel was doing with Iran what Russia did with Ukraine, but western countries were selective about raising their voices.

“When Israel attacks Iran, world powers like America, Europe go silent. If Russia was wrong in attacking another country, Israel’s attack on Iran is also not right,” he said.

Peoples Democratic Party chief and former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti said Israel’s attack on Iran was yet another brazen act by a state that appeared to have gone rogue.

“The silence of the global community, particularly western powers led by the US, is both alarming and telling. This silence amounts to tacit approval. In the case of India-Pakistan tensions, the US never fails to assert that its intervention has been crucial in preventing escalation. Yet when it comes to Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza or its latest strike on Iran, that same urgency is conspicuously missing,” she said.

“This glaring double standard endangers global peace and stability. Equally disturbing is the deafening silence of the so-called Muslim countries that remain shamelessly non-existent in the face of such grave injustice. Their inaction is not just disappointing, it’s a betrayal of the very causes they claim to stand for,” she added.

Srinagar MP Aga Ruhullah Mehdi said Israel had bombed Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iran, but still played the victim.

“This rogue Zionist regime isn’t defending itself, it’s behaving like a colonial thug. Attacking sovereign nations at will doesn’t make you powerful, it makes you a terrorist state,” he posted on X.

“Iran, like any sovereign nation, now has every right to defend itself and take full, punishing revenge. The Zionist regime should pay for its crimes in Gaza, for its bloodlust, for its massacres,” he added.