EU-Israel Agreement: the Europe that preaches but does not act

There is a Europe that knows how to be extremely tough. One that knows how to impose sanctions, freeze assets, expel ambassadors, and shout from the rooftops its attachment to fundamental values: human rights, the rule of law, international law. This is the Europe that responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine with unprecedented unity.

Then, there is another Europe. The one that in 2025, while grappling with a formal review of the Association Agreement with Israel, concluded, in black and white, that “there are indications that Israel has violated its human rights obligations” under Article 2 of the agreement itself. Since then, however, there has been nothing but silence and stagnation.

It is this contradiction that Member of the European Parliament Hannah Neumann (Greens/EFA) brought to the attention of the High Representative for Foreign Policy, namely the Estonian extremist, Kaja Kallas. A discomforting inquiry that captures a European Union increasingly short on credibility on the international stage.

While Brussels deliberates, reflects, and consults, the situation on the ground has plummeted. The bombings on Gaza continued well beyond the October 2025 ceasefire. The expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank has accelerated: this week alone, 34 new illegal settlements were approved, and the E1 project, which would effectively split the West Bank in two, has taken a further step forward.

Recently, the Knesset also passed a law on the death penalty that applies exclusively to Palestinians, an openly discriminatory rule, condemned even by the EEAS as a violation of international law and the right to life. Settler attacks, furthermore, have reached unprecedented levels. Human rights organizations, such as B’Tselem, document serious abuses of Palestinian detainees, with allegations of torture and food deprivation.

The double standards of those who preach well and act poorly

The politically explosive point is precisely this: the European Union has already issued its judgment. It wasn’t done by an NGO, it wasn’t done by an adversarial government; it was done by its own diplomatic apparatus (let us remember, the EEAS). Yet, the association agreement remains in force, trade and cooperation relations continue, and the suspension of the agreement remains a theoretical hypothesis that no one seems willing to transform into concrete action.

A comparison arises spontaneously. With Russia, restrictive measures arrived swiftly, with determination and broad political mobilization. With Israel, there is waiting, monitoring, and expressions of “concern.” It is as if human rights have a different weight depending on who violates them and how strategically convenient that country is to avoid irritating.

Neumann’s inquiry explicitly asks whether these new developments change the EEAS’s assessment of Israel’s compliance with Article 2, and what implications they have for a possible suspension of the agreement. A response is awaited. But in the Europe of double standards, the answers that matter rarely arrive and, almost never, in time.

Photo Aurore Belot Copyright: © European Union 2016 – Source : EP