As the conflict in Gaza stretches on for a second year and casualties mount, several figures from within the European Commission, including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have proposed the implementation of punitive economic measures against Israel. This comes as a response to the growing public unease across Europe with the actions of Israel against the Palestinian people. As reported by the United Nations (UN) (citing the Gazan Health Ministry), there have been nearly 63,000 fatalities since the outbreak of the conflict. Many more have been displaced. Von der Leyen expressed intent at altering some terms of the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel:
“Reflecting these principled commitments, and taking into account serious recent developments in the West Bank, we propose to suspend trade concessions with Israel, sanction extremist ministers and violent settlers, and put bilateral support to Israel on hold.”
In spite of these calls for greater efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, no action can be taken until a certain majority of European states consent to doing so. In general, major decisions necessitate the agreement of the major players in Europe: France, Germany and Italy. Most significantly, Germany – one of Israel’s key allies for the last number of decades – is reluctant to endorse placing sanctions on Israeli figures or placing tariffs on Israeli trade. German caution in particular is expressed owing to its longstanding diplomatic relationship and security cooperation with Israel. As a consequence of this, the Bundestag is unlikely to agree to any measures taken against Israel.
Observers have noted a strong contrast in the policy of the EU concerning sanctions. Any discussion must raise the question of moral consistency, in that sanctions are intended to punish countries acting outside acceptable norms. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the European Union has been one of the most ardent supporters of the Ukrainian cause, and in no small way, has placed itself into a difficult position of its own by implementing far-reaching sanctions on Russia. The striking difference in approach to the conflict in Gaza is particularly notable, as it makes little economic sense. Boasting of the effectiveness of sanctions on Russia – with statements claiming that principle outweighs profit – in the same breath as excusing inaction towards Israel on the basis of bilateral ties has been criticised as an unsound argument. For reference, Israel-EU trade represents around €43 billion per annum, or less than a single percent of total trade. In the prewar period, Russia-EU trade represented close to €260 billion.
Beyond all economic and geopolitical considerations, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to worsen. The Israeli armed forces have committed to a takeover campaign, and those who have remained in Gaza, a figure thought to number in the hundreds of thousands, continue to live under the constant threat of Israeli strikes and a dwindling food supply. The reality of the human tragedy occurring in Gaza has clearly resonated with European politicians – among them, our own Tánaiste Simon Harris, who has joined in the calls made by several European foreign ministers for an urgent vote in the European Council on suspending the Agreement. The subject of a solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine has dominated the opening days of the UN summit, and European participants have maintained a strong favour for a two-state solution. The likelihood of peace, and the implementation of a solution, hinges on action by the international community: the suspension of free trade between Europe and Israel may act as a key component of this effort.
