Zaha Hassan
Fellow in the Middle East Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
If Article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement is to have any meaning—and if promoting and preserving human rights and the post-World War II architecture are to escape obsolescence—then the EU must suspend compacts that provide Israel with preferential treatment.
In violation of the January 2024 binding ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel has continued to restrict the essentials of life to more than two million Palestinians who are completely dependent on such aid. It has essentially criminalized the critical, life-saving work of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. And since March 2, 2025, Israel has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, with the population—half of whom are children—now facing starvation.
The EU must also contend with an advisory opinion from the ICJ determining that Israel’s very presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is unlawful, its regime one constructed on racism and apartheid, and its confiscation and exploitation of the natural resources of the OPT theft. That World Court stated that third states have an obligation to support Palestinian self-determination and end Israel’s occupation. There is little doubt that the authoritative ICJ opinion obligates the EU to use the leverage under its disposal with Israel.
Marek Matusiak
Research Program Coordinator at the Center for Eastern Studies (OSW)
Israel’s responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity—committed in Gaza on a mass scale and as a matter of policy—may at this point be controversial only to those who simply choose to ignore the reality. Reality not hidden in Israel itself.
Israeli politicians talk freely about starving Gazans and about cleansing the Strip of its inhabitants. Israeli soldiers openly discuss targeting civilians—for instance those unwittingly entering areas designated as kill zones—and post clips showing themselves blowing up universities, hospitals, and mosques. Also, stories disproving the Israeli Defense Forces’s claimed compliance with international humanitarian law standards (e.g. in terms of collateral damage) or describing the systematic torture of detainees are just a few clicks away for anybody willing to find them.
Therefore, the question that the EU faces is not about facts but about politics. Suspending the association agreement with Israel wouldn’t be easy—history and transatlantic concerns may argue against it. But it is necessary. To show Israel its actions are not acceptable and, hopefully, stop them. And to prevent the EU’s much-touted claim to be a beacon of human rights from becoming a global—and even more damagingly internal—object of ridicule. That is, if it hasn’t already.
Nathalie Tocci
Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali
The EU shouldn't suspend the EU-Israel association agreement today. It should have done so a long time ago. At least since Israel's war crimes in the Gaza Strip became clearly documented, with the ICJ considering the evidence sufficient to proceed with South Africa's genocide case against Israel, and the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Maintaining an association agreement, which elevates human rights as one of its essential elements, has made mockery of the EU and its values.
The argument often heard is that the suspension of the association agreement would not deter Israel from proceeding with its genocidal war in Gaza. But the argument falls flat given that the continuation of the agreement, now and in the past, has never been leveraged to exercise influence on Israel.
It is only as and when Israel will start feeling the cost of its actions that it might be induced to change course. And as small and symbolic as the suspension of the association agreement would be, it would be a step in that direction. The opposite simply means remaining on the path of complicity with Israel’s crimes, which the EU has been on for many years in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Hugh Lovatt
Senior Policy Fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Program at the European Council on Foreign Relations
Israel has become the Middle East’s new de-stabilizer-in-chief. From Gaza to Syria, its expanding military interventions and annexation of foreign territory are undermining Western-friendly governments, and threatening core European interests.
EU members hesitate to confront Israel directly. But they do possess significant leverage to challenge Israeli behavior. Even without the unanimous consent needed to suspend the union’s association agreement with Israel, a qualified majority of member states could nevertheless suspend key trade provisions and freeze Israel’s participation in flagship EU projects such as Horizon Europe. The EU has taken similar action on twenty-six separate occasions in the past, in response to human rights breaches by other countries. Israel deserves no exception.
Suspending the association agreement, even in part, would create the sort of tangible dilemmas that Israelis have so far avoided: presenting them with a stark choice between global integration and economic prosperity or forever war in an increasingly isolated Greater Israel. By clearly articulating this choice, Europeans can strengthen Israel’s anti-Netanyahu bloc—which castigates the government for turning the country into a pariah state—while bolstering those Israelis who loudly argue that ending the war in Gaza and returning to diplomacy is the only way to save Israel.
Amélie Ferey
Head of the Defense Research Unit at the Institut Français des Relations Internationales
Terminating the association agreement between the European Union and Israel would mark an unprecedented break with Europe’s longstanding tradition of support for the State of Israel.
Israel has always seen itself as an extension of Europe in the Levant: because Zionism was born in Europe; because the country’s political, intellectual, and military elite is predominantly Ashkenazi; and because a significant portion of the Israeli population today holds a European passport.
Breaking this agreement would assert that Europe’s attachment to Israel cannot justify turning a blind eye to the fundamental principles of international law. It would acknowledge that the protection of civilians, proportionality in the use of force, and limits on state power are integral parts of the European legacy—the very one forged in the aftermath of 1945. It would also weaken even more Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the eyes of the Ashkenazi elite and, beyond, of all his contenders.
Such a move would allow the EU to respond to accusations of inertia and double standards—which Russia, China, and Iran—are keen to exploit, and mark a step toward the emergence of a geopolitical Europe. Above all, it would align with the idea that Europe can—and must—embody a democratic alternative on the global stage.
H.A. Hellyer
Senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies
In a word: yes. Ever since the association agreement was signed with Israel in 2000, Tel Aviv has violated Article 2, which specifies that “all the provisions of the Agreement” are based on “respect for human rights and democratic principles,” and it is hard to make the case that Israel has abided by this article while it has maintained its occupation of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese territories.
This is particularly pronounced in recent years, which no doubt led the former EU high representative for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell, to claim that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza. Even if such a determination has to be made by the International Court of Justice, there is a widespread consensus that Israel is flagrantly violating international law in the occupied territories, particularly in Gaza, and the EU’s credibility on the world stage is tremendously at risk while the association agreement is in force.
The international community is no doubt comparing the painstakingly slow progress on removing EU sanctions on Syria, which lost legitimacy once the Assad regime fell, to how the EU is proceeding on Israel. In an age where the rules-based order is severely under pressure, the EU must act to reinforce that order where it can.
Hussein Baoumi
EU advocacy officer at Amnesty International
Unanimity rules make the suspension of the association agreement unlikely in the short term. But legal, diplomatic, and strategic imperatives are making suspension not only necessary, but inevitable.
Legally, Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem have been extensively documented, by the EU, member states, the UN, world courts and leading organizations. Israeli officials are openly talking about ethnic cleansing. Denial requires a full retreat into post-truth politics and carries mounting legal risks.
Diplomatically, deepening cooperation has failed to shift Israeli policy to meet Europe’s expectations and has, instead, emboldened Israeli officials and settlers to act with impunity. If Europe wants Netanyahu to take its demands seriously, it must link its requests to consequences.
Strategically, the costs of inaction are mounting. Europe’s credibility abroad has eroded and its commitment to international law is undermined. Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide, annexation plans, and aggression in Syria undermine the rules-based order and Europe's interests in the region.
Strip away ideology and soundbites, and a hard truth remains: A truly geostrategic Europe risks irrelevance, unless it can sort out the mess in its own neighborhood without U.S. help.
Conducting formal review of Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the association agreement is a necessary first step.
