The recent tensions surrounding Israel and Iran have influenced the European Union’s considerations regarding its association agreement with Israel, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Despite a proposal from several EU member states to review ties with Israel based on its military actions that have drawn international scrutiny, sources indicate that the EU is not expected to suspend the association agreement. This agreement outlines the diplomatic and trade relations between the EU and Israel and mandates adherence to human rights obligations. A review initiated by the EU’s External Action Service (EEAS) is expected to conclude that Israel is likely in breach of its human rights commitments under Article 2 of the agreement, primarily due to its military offensive and blockade of essential supplies to Gaza.
Member states, however, appear hesitant to take more punitive actions such as suspending the agreement due to the current conflict with Iran. While some countries advocate for stronger measures against Israel, there is a growing sentiment that the primary objective should be securing a ceasefire in Gaza. The discussion among EU foreign ministers set for Monday is anticipated to reflect a consensus that Israel’s actions—though potentially breaching the association agreement—will not be met with suspension. Two diplomatic sources commented that recent pressure on Israel has lessened amidst the tensions with Iran, suggesting a shift back toward supporting Israel’s position.
Germany’s position plays a pivotal role in the EU negotiations regarding any potential suspension of the agreement. Recently, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz openly criticized Israel’s operations in Gaza, suggesting that harming civilians cannot be justified as a counter-terrorism measure. This marked a significant shift for Germany, a long-term ally of Israel. However, while Merz has expressed critical views of Israel’s actions in Gaza, he continues to support Israel’s military responses toward Iran, highlighting the complexity and contradictions within EU leadership.
Martin Konecny from the European Middle East Project noted that Israel’s strikes against Iran could ironically diminish the EU’s momentum toward suspending the agreement. Instead of increasing pressure for accountability regarding the situation in Gaza, these strikes may redirect attention and support back to Israel. Moreover, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has called for diplomatic resolutions while stressing the need for adherence to international law in both the Gaza conflict and the broader Israel-Iran tensions.
The dynamics of EU-Israel relations are further complicated by Israel’s strong rebuttal to the potential review of the trade agreement, which it claimed misinterprets the complex realities on the ground. The Israeli Foreign Ministry’s reaction underscores the tensions and misalignments between EU expectations and Israeli responses. Despite the EU’s calls for humanitarian access and a ceasefire in Gaza, the Israeli government maintains a firm stance on its military operations, insisting that such actions are necessary in its fight against threats it perceives in the region.
As the discussions within the EU evolve, it remains to be seen how member states will balance their diplomatic, humanitarian, and strategic interests amid escalating conflicts. While there is recognition of Israel’s actions and an understanding that they likely violate international norms, the immediate geopolitical landscape—particularly concerning Iran—shapes the responses and policy decisions. The outcome of these debates will have long-term implications for EU foreign relations and humanitarian efforts in Gaza and beyond.
