Ever since Hamas’ October 2023 attacks, the European Union’s reaction to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and Lebanon has highlighted stark divides within the bloc. While the EU’s condemnation of the initial violence has been resolute, individual member states have diverged significantly in their responses to Israel’s actions, emphasising the complexities inherent in the EU’s foreign policy mechanisms and indirectly impacting the Union’s authority and credibility on the global stage.

The EU-Israel Association Agreement: A Now-Strained Relationship

The European Union-Israel Association Agreement, central to trade and diplomatic relations between the two parties, is currently under heightened scrutiny in light of Israel’s recent military operations. Central to the debate lies the agreement’s human rights clause, requiring both parties to uphold human rights as a fundamental aspect of their partnership. But Member States, including Ireland and Spain, are now arguing that Israel’s current military actions constitute a breach of the clause, specifically criticising what they see as a disproportionate use of force against Gaza’s civilian population.

Both Ireland and Spain have led calls for the suspension of the agreement, pushing the EU to use its economic leverage to uphold international humanitarian standards. Yet, their position highlights broader concerns within the bloc regarding the balancing of human rights commitments with economic and strategic interests. Conversely, states like Germany and Austria adopt a more measured approach, underlining Israel’s strategic role in regional stability and counter-terrorism. They, in turn, argue that suspending the agreement could further destabilise the region and dilute the EU’s influence within it.

At the heart of the division rests the broader debates on the EU’s foreign policy framework, such as whether economic agreements should serve as instruments to promote human rights abroad. It also signals the complex calculus behind EU diplomacy, where strategic alliances often clash with the Union’s human rights principles. The EU’s lack of consensus on foreign policy significantly undermines its capacity to exert unified diplomatic pressure, particularly in complex conflicts such as those in Gaza and Lebanon. Until agreement is reached on the consistent application of the human rights clause, this disunity will continue to impede the EU’s influence on the global stage.

Internal Divisions: A Fragmented Foreign Policy Approach

The EU’s fragmented stance on Israel, with countries like Ireland and Spain pushing for assertive measures such as sanctions, while Germany and several Eastern European states remaining cautious due to historical, economic, and security concerns, has underscored its divided approach to foreign policy.

Germany’s reserved stance, influenced by its post-World War II relationship with Israel, reflects a commitment to historical responsibility, echoed by states such as Hungary and Poland, which often prioritise stability and security in their foreign policies. Conversely, Ireland and Spain have focused on human rights and international law, driven by a principled stance that seeks accountability for perceived violations. Ireland’s position, particularly, is shaped by its own historical context of colonialism, fostering a strong commitment to human rights. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has urged the European Commission to “(…) respond once and for all to the formal request made by two European countries to suspend the association agreement with Israel if it is found, as everything suggests, that human rights are being violated,” emphasising the gravity of the situation.

These divergences hence exacerbate the EU’s inability to present a unified front when taking into account the politically charged landscape of the Middle East, which jeopardises the EU’s strategic aims and reputation as a credible global mediator.

Implications for the EU’s Global Role and the Pathways to a Cohesive EU Foreign Policy

As the Union aspires to assert itself as a prominent global power, contending with internal rifts and ensuring greater cohesion will be paramount if the EU is to be effective in influencing peace processes. This necessity becomes crucial in volatile regions like the Middle East, an area where the EU’s credibility has now been put into doubt.

The EU’s challenge in presenting a unified approach to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and Lebanon highlights broader issues within its foreign policy framework. To solidify its standing as a global player, the Union must foster greater coordination among member states and establish more robust mechanisms for achieving alignment on strategic priorities.

Achieving a more cohesive foreign policy approach will likely require further integration and a structured framework to balance national interests with the EU’s broader geopolitical aims, likely requiring reforms to the current veto system in the Council for such ‘sensitive’ policy areas. By addressing these internal divides, the EU can strengthen its position as a credible and effective global actor, particularly in strategically significant regions like the Middle East.