While the EU’s rhetoric on Israel is shifting, its economic and political ties remain largely intact: A dynamic that may increasingly threaten the Union’s normative credibility
Since October 7th, the EU has maintained public support for Israel, with Commission President von der Leyen consistently calling for a two-state solution. Over the past two years, EU member states have balanced differing responses to the crisis in Gaza: some have moved to recognize Palestine, while others have reaffirmed close ties with Israel. Von der Leyen’s statements after October 7th have condemned the attacks and urged restraint, but avoided concrete policy measures.
However, in late May, the tide seemed to start turning – led by former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas.
The dramatic increase in media attention to the human suffering and casualties in Gaza and the West Bank pushed the EU debate centered on the situation and the accusations of war crimes and international law violations against Israel.
Despite the escalation with Iran, where diplomatic focus in the Middle East briefly shifted towards preventing a regional war, the EU’s diplomatic service presented ten different options for political action against Israel on July 10th, ranging from suspension of the Association Agreement to halting exchange between European and Israeli universities. On 15 July 2025, EU foreign ministers met in Brussels to review Israel’s compliance with the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
In May, Kaja Kallas, who holds the post of High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, launched the process of reviewing Article 2 of the Association Agreement.
Article 2 explicitly states that “Relations between the Parties… shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guide their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.”
The EU-Israel Association Agreement, which entered into force in the middle of 2000, has facilitated trade in goods and services between the EU and Israel, amounting to € 43 billion in 2024 alone. The trade balance is heavily dominated by EU exports of goods such as machinery and transport equipment.
EU High Representative Kaja Kallas said that a new aid deal had begun improving Gaza access (more aid trucks and open crossings), but warned the EU would “keep a close watch” on implementation and update compliance every two weeks. Ministers examined the list of 10 possible follow-up measures but reached no agreement on enacting any. Instead, they agreed only to leave all options “on the table” and stand ready to act if Israel fails to honor its commitments, emphasizing that “the aim is not to punish Israel” but to improve the situation in Gaza. EU ambassadors were tasked with monitoring Israel’s follow-through every two weeks.
Thus, as of late July 2025, no sanctions or suspension of the Association Agreement have been imposed; the bloc remains divided and will continue to review options into the fall.
While European leaders and institutions debate the sustainability of the future relationship between Israel and the EU, civil society organizations like Amnesty call the refusal to suspend the Association Agreement a ‘cruel and unlawful betrayal’.
At the same time, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul have publicly ruled out both full and partial suspension, stating that Germany views continued engagement with Israel as essential and that the termination of the agreement would be unacceptable.
Even though the clause of Article 2 is legally binding, its enforcement will remain political.
When compared to decisions made in the past between similar agreements, the decision to not suspend the Association Agreement emerges as an unsustainable and risky decision – Especially when considering the EU’s future aspirations as it prepares to become independent from Trump.
In the past, the EU has suspended or frozen association agreements when core values were deemed violated: for example, the EU suspended its agreement with Belarus in 1997 following crackdowns on political opposition, and froze negotiations with Syria in 2011 amid escalating human rights abuses during the civil war. The EU also suspended trade preferences with Sri Lanka in 2010 under the GSP+ scheme due to serious concerns over torture and press freedom. And, as is seemingly obvious, relative trade suspensions and limitations with Russia have been clear since early 2022.
These precedents highlight that the EU has previously acted to uphold its human rights principles – making its inaction regarding Israel a subject of growing scrutiny.
Alongside Hungary and the Czech Republic, Germany is cited as the key opponent to both suspending the agreement or arms embargo proposals – effectively blocking moves requiring unanimity, as full suspension under Article 2 would require.
Why is Israel different?
This disparity is partly explained by the rhetoric of pro-Israel EU member states, such as Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, which have consistently framed their support as a moral and historical obligation rooted in the legacy of the Holocaust and the right of Israel to defend itself. For these governments, criticism of Israel is often equated with risks of antisemitism or delegitimization of the Israeli state, making them resistant to punitive measures, even in the face of international legal scrutiny. This creates a political environment within the EU where consensus on applying human rights conditionality – as in the case of Russia – becomes far more challenging to achieve with Israel, despite the legal frameworks being similar.
The EU’s image as a human rights defender is so deeply embedded in Western diplomatic language that it functions like background music in foreign policy circles – assumed to be harmonious and rarely questioned. The value of this normative power, as it has developed over the years, is a badge that the EU wears proudly.
As Ian Manners has argued, the EU is constitutionally anchored in norms like peace, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, shaping its external behavior and its role as a normative power rather than a military or coercive one.
He contends that norms form the core identity of the EU and predispose it to “act normatively” in international relations, utilizing its influence to operate through a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms, allowing it to shape international expectations for behavior. More interestingly, Manners explains that the integrity of this normative influence is challenged by a gap between norms-based rhetoric and political practice. The recurring terms of member-state tensions and EU values concerning limiting the Union’s consistency and credibility are as relevant as it was in the tumultuous early 2000s when Manners’ article was published.
The refusal to suspend the Association Agreement reveals a troubling normative double standard, especially considering the context of the amount of legal and economic leverage that the EU has on Israel. And, where any kind of political rhetoric exists, the lack of political will continues to disappoint the starving in Gaza.
Furthermore, and ignoring the moral hit that the Union will be taking in modern history, not suspending the Association Agreement is a significant policy risk.
International and civil society organizations’ statements enforce the argument that ignoring the legal provisions Article 2 weakens the credibility of such clauses across all EU trade agreements – undermining the EU’s ability to negotiate future agreements with human rights provisions.
At a time when the EU is seeking to expand its global influence through agreements with Global South countries – such as Mercosur and the African Union – inconsistency in applying human rights standards may be viewed as hypocritical, especially when powers like China offer alternatives without normative strings attached.
Geopolitical influence continues to be closely tied to credibility and coherence. The erosion of normative conditionality will dilute one of the EU’s most foundational tools of foreign policy.
EU-Israel relations will, unfortunately, serve as a grim example for the EU’s declining credibility as a normative power in global governance.
Photo: Wikimedia