In the past few months, European expressions of concern over the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have regularly hardened into outright condemnation.
In September last year, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed horror and outrage at aid restrictions that she said created a “manmade famine” in Gaza. Brussels has inveighed against settler violence and land grabs in the West Bank, which undermine the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
Responding to the bombing of Lebanon following the US-Israeli ceasefire with Iran, EU High Representative of Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas said: “Israel’s right to self-defense does not justify this destruction.”
The angry words and exhortations have achieved nothing. Netanyahu and his ministers have generally treated European critics with barely concealed contempt, presumably reassured by the fact that their chief allies in the White House tend to behave in the same fashion. The EU is Israel’s biggest trading partner, and the academic benefits it confers through Israeli participation in the Horizon research program are considerable.
However, internal disunity, and an overoptimistic faith in the power of persuasion, has led to reluctance by the bloc to use those relationships as leverage.
Belatedly, there are indications that a change in approach might be coming.
The election humiliation for outgoing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was a bad result for Netanyahu, who lost an invaluable far-right ally. In February, Hungary was the only EU country to vote against the adoption of sanctions against violent settlers in the West Bank, blocking a measure requiring unanimity. Once Orban’s successor is in office, it is expected that the proposal could come back to the table.
More broadly, Spain is formally calling for the EU to suspend its association agreement with Israel, which gives preferential status to economic and commercial relations, on the grounds of human rights violations. Such a measure would fail to win unanimous support from key countries including Germany, but a partial suspension affecting the trade parts of the agreement — previously advocated by Von der Leyen in September — would require only a weighted majority in favor.
That might prove unachievable, as was the case last autumn, but as the extremism driving the Netanyahu government becomes ever clearer, there is little doubt that the mood is shifting.
Last week, following angry exchanges between Tel Aviv and Rome over civilian deaths in Lebanon, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced that the renewal of a defense cooperation agreement with Israel would be suspended “in view of the current situation.” Meloni, like Orban, could once be considered a close political ally.
As the geopolitical consequences of the spectacularly reckless and illegal US-Israel war on Iran destabilize their economies, European governments can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and talk to Netanyahu’s hand. That one-third of Israel’s trade is done with the EU gives the latter significant cards to play; so too, the cultural and academic ties forged on a premise of shared values.
Yet, Brussels has repeatedly seen its views brushed aside as, with the help of US President Donald Trump, Israel’s prime minister pursues a maximalist regional agenda that manifestly has no place for a two-state solution. If the wind is changing in European corridors of power, it is not before time.
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS