Europe's dilemma: How long can it kick the can on Israel's human rights violations in Gaza?

Indian Express

2 days ago

The developments in West Asia — particularly the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and the Israel-Iran ceasefire — have delayed the European Union's review process of its Association Agreement (AA) with Israel. The AA provides a framework for political and economic ties between the EU and Israel. Apart from other provisions, it also establishes a free trade area between the two.
On June 20, the office of the EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights submitted a note to the European Council regarding Israel's compliance with the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The note focused on Article 2 of the Agreement, which includes human rights and democratic principles as essential elements.
A formal request for a review of Article 2 was made by the Netherlands and supported by 16 other EU member states. Although the Netherlands is a strong supporter of Israel, its move was seen as a response to strong public anger and widespread street protests in the country against Israel's actions in Gaza.The 'restricted' EUSR document was circulated to all member states ahead of the summit meeting but was leaked by some European media outlets. Based on reports concerning the blockade, denial, or limited access to humanitarian aid; the unprecedented killing and injury of civilians; attacks on hospitals and medical facilities; displacement; attacks on journalists; settlement consolidation and expansion in the West Bank; and arbitrary detentions, the note concludes that 'Israel would be in breach' of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the Agreement.
In response to the EU's move to re-examine its Association Agreement on the basis of human rights, Israel labelled the step 'outrageous and indecent'. It stated that at a time when the country is facing an existential threat, the EU's 'review' of its relations with Israel amounts to a 'moral distortion'.
In the lead-up to the European Council meeting, some European countries appeared to harden their stances against Israel. Nine EU countries — Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden — called on the EU to develop a plan to halt trade with Israeli settlements. They emphasised the need to ensure that EU policies do not contribute, directly or indirectly, to the perpetuation of an illegal situation.
The EU is Israel's largest trading partner, accounting for around 43 billion euro in trade. In 2024, 32 per cent of Israel's total goods trade was with the EU. Although the EU does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territories, products from these areas are often labelled as 'Made in Israel,' potentially misleading European consumers.
However, at the European Council meeting, the mood was cautious. The shift towards human rights seems to have dissipated amid developments related to Iran. The Council summit was dominated by issues such as European defence, Ukraine, trade issues with the US, as well as sudden developments in the Middle East.
It called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the unconditional release of all hostages, and urged Israel to fully lift its blockade on Gaza. However, instead of taking concrete action, the meeting merely took note of the EUSR report on Israel's compliance with Article 2 of the Agreement. The Council was invited to continue discussions on possible follow-up measures in July 2025, 'depending on the evolution of the situation on the ground'.
In his public statement, European Council President Antonio Costa asserted that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is 'catastrophic and human rights are being violated' and the EUSR review has confirmed it. He added that the situation is unacceptable and the EU foreign ministers will discuss the next steps.
Although the EU adopted a cautious approach, some European leaders expressed strong frustration. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez criticised EU leaders for not suspending the trade agreement with Israel, despite what he described as 'the catastrophic genocide'. He asserted that it was 'more than obvious that Israel is violating Article 2 of the EU-Israel Agreement.' He further stated that the EU has imposed 18 sanctions against Russia for its aggression, yet Europe, with its double standards, is incapable of suspending an Association Agreement with Israel.
However, reaching a consensus on this issue within the EU will be extremely difficult. While Ireland has also supported a suspension, many others — including Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, and Hungary — remain close allies of Israel.
Many of the conflicts in the Middle East are deeply rooted in European history. While the EU has a historic responsibility to play a more proactive role, its effectiveness has been limited by the divergent positions of its member states on Israel and the recognition of the State of Palestine. As a result, it has often been convenient for Europe to allow the US to take the lead in the region. Even during the current Iran-Israel war, when the Iranian Foreign Minister was meeting his counterparts in Europe, President Trump doubted the impact of these talks, saying, 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe, Iran wants to speak to us'.
Today, numerous EU member states recognise Palestine. However, major powers such as France, Germany, and Italy — while supporting a two-state solution — prefer a negotiated peace settlement over unilateral recognition. Despite the difficulties in reaching a consensus on the issue, the human rights situation in Gaza will remain a serious topic in major EU discussions. The EU cannot ignore taking action indefinitely. As former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell Fontelles recently wrote: 'If Europe bears responsibility for its victims, it also bears responsibility for the victims of its victims'.
The writer is Chief Coordinator, DAKSHIN – Global South Centre of Excellence at RIS, New Delhi, and Professor of European Studies at JNU