On Wednesday, Israeli forces in the West Bank opened fire in the direction of a delegation of European, Arab, and Asian diplomats. In yet another mark of Israeli hubris, the Israeli military said it “regrets the inconvenience.”
The timing of this incident is not coincidental. Earlier this week, the European Union, many of its member states, and other Western countries issued statements and took steps that appeared to finally represent concrete actions to pressure Israel to change its behavior in Gaza and the West Bank.
The question is whether that is really what happened.
It started with a letter from a coalition of states that fund international humanitarian efforts. That was followed by the United Kingdom, France, and Canada threatening targeted sanctions and other actions if Israel didn’t scale back its offensive in Gaza, allow humanitarian aid into the Strip, and cease its aggression on the West Bank.
The UK followed that up with the announcement that they were suspending talks on a free trade deal with Israel that had been going on for years and were sanctioning several settler leaders, groups, and so-called “outposts” on the West Bank. Finally, the European Union voted to review its trade deal with Israel, as the agreement is based on upholding international law and human rights norms.
It would seem like Europe is finally starting to act. But is that really the case?
The donor letter
A coalition of 24 states, plus the EU, issued a statement calling on Israel to “allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza immediately and enable the UN and humanitarian organisations to work independently and impartially to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity.”
That is, of course, what Israel should do immediately. What is so obviously missing is the most important clause, one which starts with “or else…”
Calls such as this one have echoed through the ether since Israel began its unabashedly genocidal onslaught in the wake of the attacks of October 7, 2023. Israel has always operated on a basic calculation of cost and benefit. This is especially true of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, although he, much more than most Israeli leaders, has always made that calculus based more on his own interests than those of the state.
Without some sort of threat, some sort of significant penalty, why would anyone think Israel would listen? This statement doesn’t even hint at any consequence at all to Israel if it fails to comply with the call.
The states that signed this statement came together not based on their relationships with Israel but on their positions as supporters of humanitarian organizations around the world, including in Gaza. Netanyahu has no reason to be concerned about their call. He has done all he can to undermine the global mechanism of humanitarian aid, an effort which is in support of the much broader work to destroy humanitarian aid around the world by the United States.
Without any threat, no country would yield to these demands, especially not Israel, which has nothing but contempt for such sentiments.
The UK-France-Canada statement
By contrast, the statement issued by the UK, France, and Canada is more specific and broader in its demands and does threaten consequences. On the surface, then, it seems to be a better bet for having a real impact. But digging a little deeper reveals less cause for optimism.
The letter calls “on the Israeli Government to stop its military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. This must include engaging with the UN to ensure a return to delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.”
It also calls on Israel to abandon the idea of displacing the people of Gaza and to “halt settlements.” At several points, the letter threatens “further action,” although until the mention of settlements, it doesn’t specify what actions might be considered. In connection with settlement expansion, it threatens “targeted sanctions.”
Former U.S. President Joe Biden enacted targeted sanctions against specific settler leaders and settlement enterprises. Little came of it. At the time, observers noted that the sanctions Biden leveled would not deter settlers unless they were expanded as Israeli settlers, and the government that works so closely with them, continued their violence against Palestinians. No such follow-up ever came, and even Biden’s meager sanctions were immediately reversed when Donald Trump took office.
On Tuesday, the UK did enact some targeted sanctions on two settler leaders, two so-called “outposts” (these are wildcat settlements built without Israeli government license and they are called outposts until Israel retroactively legalizes and recognizes them, at which point, Israel treats them as any other settlement), and two settler organizations.
The sanctions largely relate to assets held in the UK, business transactions done in the UK, or travel to the UK. This is similar to the Biden sanctions but is less impactful as the UK does not have control over the mechanisms of global transactions that the United States does. Nor is the UK nearly as likely as the U.S. to be the site where settlers hold any assets. One can only imagine one of the UK’s targets, well-known settler leader Daniella Weiss, hearing about this and laughing, the idea that this could deter her in even the smallest way being so absurd.
Outside of such targeted sanctions, the UK-France-Canada letter does not make clear what “further actions” it might take. Until it does so, Israel will not take it seriously.
UK pauses free trade talks
In addition to the paltry sanctions, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also announced that his country would be pausing talks on a free trade agreement with Israel. This sounds like a big deal. The UK was only the eighth biggest importer of Israeli goods in 2024, amounting to 2.6% of Israel’s exports. A new trade agreement would likely boost that figure considerably.
But it hasn’t been the priority for Israel that one might think. The free trade talks were initiated in 2022 and have largely stalled since last year when the UK implemented a token restriction on a small number of arms sales to Israel, a move which brought some ice to relations between the two close allies. While both sides claimed the arms issue would not affect the trade talks, the last round of negotiations were over a year ago, in April 2024. It’s also worth noting that recent reports show that those arms sales went ahead despite the licensing restriction the UK government imposed.
In other words, the trade talks that Starmer paused had already been paused. No doubt, shining a bright light on Netanyahu’s neglect of Israel’s business interests in favor of his personal and ideological pursuit of corruption and genocide will not sit well with some of Israel’s business leaders. But it’s unlikely to be a significant factor in raising the domestic cost for Netanyahu’s continued pursuit of his goals.
Like Biden, Starmer has put on a show of acting against Israel to force it to back off from its genocidal course in both Gaza and the West Bank. And like Biden, this was simply an attempt to mollify the growing chorus of voices among his constituents that want their country to stop supporting genocide and apartheid in Palestine and Israel while maintaining his full support for Israel.
The EU “reviews” its trade deal with Israel
On Tuesday, the European Union voted to “review” its trade agreement with Israel. It is referred to as an “Article 2 review,” as this article states that the agreement “…shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles…” a standard Israel obviously fails.
While this review has the potential to significantly impact Israel, it is more likely to end up as just another bit of fluff. The question of which outcome prevails will be answered by the level of political will in the EU. Based on Europe’s recent track record, that is not a hopeful prospect.
Tragically, Spain and Ireland first requested the review fifteen months ago in a letter to the EU foreign policy chief. That letter was ignored, as the two countries stood alone at the time. Now, the EU voted 27-17 to pursue the review.
Like so much else, we can only weep at the fact that this could have done some real good fifteen months ago. Today, its potential utility is lessened and, far worse, the delay has cost the lives of untold tens of thousands of innocents, with the death toll still rising rapidly.
Even Spain’s and Ireland’s initial letter simply asked for “appropriate measures” to be taken should the review find—as any honest one must—that Israel is in breach of international humanitarian law and any standard of respect for human rights and democracy.
It seems unlikely that such a vague request would result in penalties that Israel would feel in a measurable way, much less in sufficient measure to deter its bloodlust.
Despite that, the EU review is the best hope the Palestinians have. While Israel has plenty of support in the EU for its genocidal policies, most notably from Germany, there is also growing concern among many EU states about the protests in support of the Palestinian people.
Spain and Ireland are influential states in the EU, and some states, such as the Netherlands, that have previously been staunchly behind Israel are starting to waver.
Perhaps more importantly, the EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 32% of Israel’s global trade in 2024. By contrast, Israel is only the EU’s 31st largest partner, accounting for just 0.8% of the EU’s global trade.
Clearly, the EU can do without Israel, while the reverse is far from true. If Europe decides to use its power to influence Israel, it could rival the United States. But the EU has always followed the U.S.’s lead on Israel.
Under Donald Trump, however, it is not clear that the U.S. would react as negatively toward EU action against Israel as previous presidents would. There has always been an unspoken message that Washington was to handle Israel, and its partners were not to act on their own. Under Trump, that message is less clear, and that is reflected in even the meager steps the EU has taken this week.
The EU has the potential, as it has all along, to stop this rampant slaughter. The moves this week, ineffectual as they are, do constitute a threat to do just that. Even that has only come because so many masses of people have demanded it. Now is the time to double down on those demands and get louder in our protests.
By: Mitchell Plitnick
Source : Mondoweiss
