Refusal to suspend EU-Israel deal ‘cruel and unlawful betrayal'
Member states were presented with 10 options, including:
Full suspension of the agreement
The EU suspension of its preferential trade and/or research pillars
An arms embargo
Sanctions on Israeli ministers
Halting visa-free travel for Israeli citizens to the EU
Banning trade with Israeli settlements
However, none of the options gathered the necessary support during the meeting.
Reacting to the decision, Amnesty International's secretary general Agnès Callamard said: 'The EU's refusal to suspend its agreement with Israel is a cruel and unlawful betrayal of the European project and vision, predicated on upholding international law and fighting authoritarian practices, of the European Union's own rules and of the human rights of Palestinians.
READ MORE: Activists 'to defy Labour with illegal pro-Palestine T-shirts' at Edinburgh protest
"This will be remembered as one of the most disgraceful moments in the EU's history."
Callamard (below) said European leaders had been given the opportunity to take "a principled stand" against Israel's crimes, but instead gave it "a greenlight to continue its genocide in Gaza, its unlawful occupation of the whole Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), and its system of apartheid against Palestinians".
Callamard added: 'The EU's own review has clearly found that Israel is violating its human rights obligations under the terms of the Association Agreement. Yet, instead of taking measures to stop it and prevent their own complicity, member states chose to maintain a preferential trade deal over respecting their international obligations and saving Palestinian lives.
'This is more than political cowardice. Every time the EU fails to act, the risk of complicity in Israel's actions grows. This sends an extremely dangerous message to perpetrators of atrocity crimes that they will not only go unpunished but be rewarded.
'Victims are entitled to far more than empty words."
Callamard urged member states to take action individually or unilaterally to suspend all forms of cooperation with Israel that may contribute to its violations of international law, including a comprehensive embargo on the export of arms and surveillance equipment and related technology, and a total ban on trade with, and investment in, Israel's illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Photos from 'In Women's Words' exhibition that showcases modern Iranian women artists
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Anger as far-right Israeli minister prays at flashpoint holy site in Jerusalem
With Israel already facing global criticism over famine-like conditions in the besieged Gaza Strip, the visit by Itamar Ben-Gvir to the hillside compound threatened to further set back efforts by international mediators to halt Israel's nearly two-year military offensive in the territory. The area, which Jews call the Temple Mount, is the holiest site in Judaism and was home to the ancient biblical temples. Muslims call the site the Noble Sanctuary, and today it is home to the Al Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam. Visits are considered a provocation across the Muslim world and openly praying violates a longstanding status quo at the site. Under the status quo, Jews have been allowed to tour the site but are barred from praying, with Israeli police and troops providing security. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said after Mr Ben-Gvir's visit that Israel would not change the norms governing the holy site. Mr Ben-Gvir made the stop after Hamas released videos showing two emaciated Israeli hostages. The videos caused in uproar in Israel and raised pressure on the government to reach a deal to bring home from Gaza the remaining hostages who were captured on October 7 2023, in the attack that triggered the war. During his visit to the hilltop compound, Mr Ben-Gvir called for Israel to annex the Gaza Strip and encourage Palestinians to leave, reviving rhetoric that has complicated negotiations to end the war. He condemned the video that Hamas released on Saturday of 24-year-old hostage Evyatar David, showing him looking skeletal and hollow-eyed in a dimly lit Gaza tunnel. The minister called it an attempt to pressure Israel. Mr Ben-Gvir's previous visits to the site have been explosive and prompted threats from Palestinian militant groups. Clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinian demonstrators in and around the site fuelled an 11-day war with Hamas in 2021. His Sunday visit was swiftly condemned as an incitement by Palestinian leaders as well as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Sufian Qudah, spokesman for the foreign ministry in neighboring Jordan, which serves as the custodian of the Al Aqsa Mosque, condemned what he called 'provocative incursions by the extremist minister' and implored Israel to prevent escalation.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on an EU army: leadership and unity remain elusive
The Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, called for the creation of a European army earlier this year, suggesting that, this time, the continent might finally be serious. Defence budgets are rising. Threats are mounting. The US is distracted. Surely now is the moment. Except, of course, it isn't. For all the political soundbites that rattle sabres with increasing confidence, Europe is probably no closer to fielding a unified military force than it was when the French rejected the European Defence Community in 1954. The problem is not one of capacity. Europe, including the UK, collectively boasts about 1.5m active military personnel, and some of the world's most successful defence firms. The problem, as ever, is politics. Or more precisely: who leads? Germany, claiming a Zeitenwende (turning point), and asking the EU to exempt military investment from budget rules, might be the frontrunner. Poland is spending more as a share of GDP than anyone. The French would like to think they would be at the front of any queue. But their Gaullist, unilateral instincts run deep. Italy has industrial knowhow but lacks the economic heft. Post-Brexit, the UK is building bridges with the EU's military powers but it still sees itself as Nato's keystone. And the Baltic states? They want no European project that might scare off Washington. Even defining a European army is difficult. Would it be a single force under the EU flag, combining the 27 national armed forces of the EU members into one common force? Or something looser, to keep Irish and Austrian neutrality intact? Could it be a smaller European intervention force? Or a joint effort by regional groupings in a new hat? The short answer is no one can agree on anything but disagreement. Squabbling might not be the best response to an increasingly assertive, hawkish and unpredictable Russian giant. Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine made territorial defence a pressing concern. Suddenly, Europe remembered why armies exist. Brussels pins its hopes of an industrial renaissance on a five-year rearmament plan that is meant to reduce reliance on US contractors. European firms like Rheinmetall and MBDA are scaling up, but the economies of scale found in the US military industrial complex elude the continent. Everyone wants to protect their local champion. No wonder the bloc has appointed a commissioner for defence whose role is about overseeing the companies making drones, shells and missiles – not the armed forces per se. A Gallup poll in 45 countries last year showed deep ambivalence toward war among Europeans. Four of the five least willing to fight were in the EU – including Spain, Germany, and Italy, where only 14% said they'd take up arms. Even in frontline states like Poland and Lithuania, fewer than half were willing to fight. This pacifist mood reflects an EU integration designed to make war between member states unthinkable. The irony is that the European army is seen as a symbol of independence from the US – while quietly relying on American satellites, command structures and munitions. Many European countries have upped defence spending, but they are not ready to go it alone. An integrated force would demand pooled sovereignty, unified command and a level of political consensus that don't currently exist. That may change. But for now, Europe continues to depend on Washington's capricious leadership – even as it dreams of 'strategic autonomy'.
