
Europe's feeble shift on Gaza
Photo by Hani Alshaer/Anadolu via Getty Images
For the last 20 months, the European Union has had no policy or even a joint position on Israel's destruction of Gaza and the extermination of its population. Some member states like Germany have doubled down on their support for Israel and increased weapons supplies and even backed Israel in the genocide case brought against it by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. Others like Ireland and Spain have been more critical of Israel. But the lack of consensus has paralysed the EU.
Yet in recent days as much Western opinion seems to be turning against Israel. Many of those who have been silent for 20 months have suddenly expressed outrage at its actions, and the EU has also finally begun to shift. On 20 May, high representative Kaja Kallas announced that the EU would review the terms of its association agreement with Israel. But even now, divisions between member states mean there is little chance the review will lead to meaningful collective action against Israel.
Since Kallas, a former Estonian prime minister, took over as the EU's foreign minister when the new European Commission was formed last year, she has had almost nothing to say about Gaza even as she constantly expresses outrage about Russian actions in Ukraine – the only issue about which she appears to really care. But this month she was finally forced to act by 17 of the bloc's 27 member states who demanded that the European Commission review the association agreement.
'It is clear from today's discussions that there is a strong majority in favour of a review of Article 2 of our Association Agreement with Israel,' Kallas told reporters in Brussels after a meeting of member state foreign ministers. Article 2 of the agreement, which came into force in 2000 and mostly covers economic relations, states that it is 'based on respect for human rights and democratic principles'.
The Irish and Spanish prime ministers had already called for an 'urgent review' of the association agreement last February. But European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who as a German Christian Democrat is also an uncritical supporter of Israel, simply ignored their demand. During the last few weeks, however, Dutch foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp has assembled a coalition of member states behind a new demand for a review, which has now forced her hand.
(It is striking that it is Veldkamp – a minister in a coalition government which includes the far-right Freedom Party led by Geert Wilders – was the driving force. Wilders has an Israeli flag in his office alongside the Dutch flag and sees Israel as the West's first line of defence in a civilisational war with Islam.)
Von der Leyen will now have to review the agreement, though the timeline is unclear. But even though Israel's human rights violations have been exhaustively documented – not least by the EU's own special representative for human rights – the EU's labyrinthine decision-making process means that the review is still unlikely to lead to significant action.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
A full suspension of the association agreement is all but impossible because it would require unanimity among member states. Elements of the agreement could be suspended with a qualified majority, but this would be difficult. Much depends on Germany, the largest EU member state, which opposed the review of the association agreement altogether. The new chancellor Friedrich Merz has expressed 'concern' about the situation in Gaza and urged Israel to allow aid supplies in but, unlike France and the UK, has stopped short of threatening to take concrete action.
The 'action plan' – which implements the association agreement and aims to further develop relations between the EU and Israel – is also currently up for renewal and, because it too requires unanimity, it is possible for one member state could refuse to sign off it and block it. Veldkamp has suggested that the Netherlands might be prepared to do just that. But even this would likely have little impact on cooperation between EU and Israel – and nothing the EU could do would affect weapons supplies, the flow of which are up to member states.
What makes the EU's failure to take meaningful action during the last 20 months so glaring is that Israel is exactly the kind of country that the EU ought to be able to influence. It is a small country in what the EU likes to call its 'neighbourhood', and the EU is its largest trading partner. The EU uses tough conditionality to push around similar countries – but not Israel.
Moreover, the whole idea of a common European foreign policy goes back to Europe's attempts to develop a joint approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the 1970s. These efforts culminated in the Venice Declaration of 1980, which acknowledged a Palestinian right to self-government and went further than the United States was willing to go in recognising the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). After the end of the Cold War, EU member states supported the two-state solution; but, as successive Israeli governments have moved to the right in the last 25 years, the consensus between EU member states has fallen apart.
Speaking after the meeting at which the review of the association agreement was announced, the new German foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, simply ignored the decision. Instead, he talked up the latest round of sanctions the EU had agreed to impose on Russia, as if Gaza didn't exist: 'As Europeans, as the European Union, we again showed that we can act, we want to act, for the benefit of our freedom. We care about conflicts in our neighbourhood – and we are united.'
[See also: Even Peter Mandelson thinks globalisation is dead]
Related
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Kremlin and Trump aides raise nuclear war fears after Ukraine drone strike
As Vladimir Putin pledges to retaliate against Ukraine for last weekend's unprecedented drone attack, Kremlin advisers and figures around Donald Trump have told the US president that the risk of a nuclear confrontation is growing, in an attempt to pressure him to further reduce US support for Ukraine. Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and an important intermediary between the Kremlin and Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff, called the Ukrainian drone strike an attack on 'Russian nuclear assets', and echoed remarks from Maga-friendly figures warning of the potential for a third world war. 'Clear communication is urgent – to grasp reality and the rising risks before it's too late,' Dmitriev wrote, adding a dove emoji. Ukraine claimed that the strike damaged more than 40 Russian planes, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M heavy bombers that have been used to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities throughout the war, killing thousands and damaging crucial infrastructure that delivers heat and electricity to millions more. But those planes can also carry weapons armed with nuclear warheads, and are part of a nuclear triad along with submarine and silo-based missiles that form the basis for a system of deterrence between Russia and the United States. After a phone call between the two leaders on Wednesday, Trump said: 'President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.' Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, in return for security assurances from the US, the UK and Russia. Those skeptical of US support for Ukraine are seizing on the risks of a nuclear confrontation to argue that the conflict could possibly spin out of control. Maga (Make America great again) influencers such as Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk have openly condemned the drone attack, with Bannon likening the strike to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Kirk writing: 'Most people aren't paying attention, but we're closer to nuclear war than we've been since this began in 2022.' But more centrist advisers within the Trump camp – including some who have closer links to Ukraine – are also warning that the risks of a nuclear conflict are growing as they seek to maintain Trump's interest in brokering a peace. 'The risk levels are going way up,' Keith Kellogg, Trump's envoy for Ukraine and Russia, told Fox News. 'When you attack an opponent's part of their [nuclear] triad, your risk level goes up because you don't know what the other side is going to do. And that's what they did.' Kellogg also repeated rumours that Ukraine had struck the Russian nuclear fleet at Severomorsk, although reports of an explosion there have not been confirmed. He said the US was 'trying to avoid' an escalation. Other current and former members of the administration skeptical of US support for Ukraine have also vocally opposed the drone strikes. 'It is not in America's interest for Ukraine to be attacking Russia's strategic nuclear forces the day before another round of peace talks,' said Dan Caldwell, an influential foreign policy adviser who was a senior aide to Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon until he was purged amid a leaking scandal last month. 'This has the potential to be highly escalatory and raises the risk of direct confrontation between Russia and Nato,' he said. 'US should not only distance itself from this attack but end any support that could directly or indirectly enable attacks against Russian strategic nuclear forces.' It is not the first time that concerns over Russia's use of a nuclear weapon have been used to try to temper US support for Ukraine. As Moscow's forces were routed near Kharkiv and in the south at Kherson in September 2022, Russian officials sent signals that the Kremlin was considering using a battlefield nuclear weapon, senior Biden officials have said. National security officials said they believed that if the Russian lines collapsed and left open the potential for a Ukrainian attack on Crimea, then there was a 50% chance that Russia would use a nuclear weapon as a result. Ukrainian officials have responded by saying that Russia has embellished its threats of a nuclear attack in order to blackmail the US from giving greater support to Ukraine.


ITV News
35 minutes ago
- ITV News
Putin vows retaliation for Ukraine drone strike as images show extent of damage
Donald Trump said that Vladimir Putin told him 'very strongly' in a call Wednesday that he will respond to Ukraine's weekend drone attack on Russian airfields


NBC News
43 minutes ago
- NBC News
Meet the Press NOW — June 4
Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) respond to Elon Musk's criticism of President Donald Trump's agenda bill as the former head of DOGE encourages Republicans to 'kill the bill.' NBC News White House Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor reports on Trump's call with Russian President Vladimir Putin amid ongoing negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Homeland Security Correspondent Julia Ainsley reports on a new ICE 'Operation At Large' that it is reshaping federal law enforcement.