Markets 
Due to the ongoing unrest in the wider region, Gaza and the West Bank were propelled back to the top of the agenda this week after having been placed on the political and media back burner.
On Monday, a meeting of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution in Brussels brought representatives of more than 60 nations together to discuss stability, security and long-term peace for Palestinians and Israelis.
On Tuesday, European Union foreign ministers discussed a proposal to partially suspend the EU–Israel Association Agreement over alleged war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon.
The renewed push for the suspension of preferential trade with Israel came from the governments of Spain, Ireland and Slovenia, known defenders of Palestinian rights.
However, the outcome had been widely anticipated. Several larger member states were not expected to support such measures, and the proposal was blocked.
Why is taking a stance on this matter dividing Europe? Are positions shifting within EU countries?
Brussels, My Love? looks into the vote and what this means for the EU’s legitimacy in the region with Martin Konečný, the director of the European Middle East Project (EuMEP), and Vincenzo Genovese, Euronews’ EU reporter.
Why is this agreement so important?
The EU–Israel Association Agreement, in the first place, consists of a free trade agreement, providing for preferential trade. As the EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, it is “the main source of leverage that it has,” Konečný explained.
This proposal was for a partial suspension of the agreement, dealing precisely with this trade component. When proposed last autumn, the same idea already failed to secure majority support.
A full suspension of the agreement would require a unanimous decision from all member countries, while suspending just the trade component only requires a qualified majority vote (the support of 15 out of 27 EU members representing 65% of the EU population).
Under the agreement, Israel must uphold human rights obligations, a clause which an EU review last summer found Israel was in breach of due to its war on Gaza and the stringent conditions applied to the deliveries of humanitarian aid at the time. It also covers Israel’s decades-long occupation of the West Bank, and settlers’ violence.
Israel rejected the review, saying it is “engaged in an existential struggle by defending against the shared enemies of the West,” but many in Europe saw this finding as a clear obligation for suspension.
“The Human Rights clause isn’t just a ‘nice addition’ in the agreement. It’s an essential and formal clause in the Agreement,” said Konečný. He noted this is also telling for the EU’s influence on the international stage.
“If the EU concluded that this has been violated, there logically has to be some action. Because of this human rights clause, that’s our clause. If there are no consequences, then we are sending the signal that basically the EU doesn’t count, that the Israeli government doesn’t need to pay attention to the concerns being voiced by the EU.”
Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, UN experts called on the EU to immediately suspend its trade agreement with Israel, saying the bloc faces “a moral test”.
The experts argued Israel continues to receive preferential access to European markets despite “well-documented human rights violations that have escalated into atrocity crimes, including genocide.”
Why was the proposal blocked?
So, why did the suspension not happen? “Well, because the member states are divided on this,” Konečný said. “Some member states are very deeply attached to Israel.”
Germany and Italy were named as the main blockers. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul called the proposal “inappropriate”, insisting that more talks are needed.
“But I would not only single out these countries. Member states such as France, Sweden, and Denmark were also not really supportive of the suspension, although they did support it previously,” Konečný said.
Yet, Italy’s vote on the EU level conceals a slight domestic shift. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of Israel’s closest friends in Europe, this week said Italy would not renew a memorandum of understanding on defence.
“It is a first shift, let’s say,” Genovese said. “We are seeing growing frictions between Italy and Israel.” The two countries were recently entangled in a diplomatic spat, with Italy summoning the Israeli ambassador over shots fired at an Italian convoy as part of a UN mission in Lebanon.
“This is not enough to justify a radical change by the Meloni government,” Genovese said. “But the official position on the EU-Israel agreement that was provided to me by the Italian foreign ministry does say in a way: ‘We are not that happy with this agreement’.”
More generally, many believe the critical tone at Tuesday’s meeting of foreign ministers signifies a noteworthy shift in the EU’s stance as a whole, even if a common EU position toward Israel remains elusive.
Genovese noted that Meloni’s government has been slowly shifting its position on the topic due to the “strong public opinion in Italy against the Netanyahu government, and due to concerns about human rights violations in Gaza and in Lebanon.”
“We saw this impact, for example, when Meloni said she was ready to recognise the state of Palestine, which was unprecedented.”
Will discussions on ties to Israel continue?
Further discussions are set to take place in the coming months, including on a proposal by France and Sweden to impose tariffs on goods originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. “The aim is to differentiate this trade from others,” the Swedish government noted.
Konečný said a proposal may be developed on this in the coming weeks. “I think this is a very important issue, because the International Court of Justice two years ago stated that states are obliged to prevent trade with the illegal settlements which benefit the Israeli occupation. The EU continues to trade with them.”
But here too, he said, countries will tread carefully. “We see a tendency by member states to be extremely cautious and kind of tiptoe around the problem. I think what should be on the table is a full ban on imports from the settlements. If they are illegal, why should we be trading with them?”
Genovese argued that, when it comes to continued talks, much will depend on public opinion. “We see that the broad topic Israel-Gaza is very concerning to people in many European countries, and in my opinion, this has also provoked some shifts in the government’s positions in the past.”
Earlier this month, a Citizens’ Initiative calling for the full suspension of the EU–Israel Association Agreement reached the one million signatures required to trigger a response from the European Commission and the European Parliament.
This comes as the northern Gaza Strip continues to be hit by occasional Israeli strikes, despite a ceasefire with Hamas that took effect last October.
Listen to the podcast in the player above or wherever you get your podcasts.
Read the full article here
