EU may be finally approaching ‘point of departure' on Gaza war
After 20 months of war that has seen tens of thousands of
Palestinians
killed, large parts of
Gaza
reduced to rubble and continued warnings about dire humanitarian conditions and possible famine, the
European Union
may finally be approaching a 'point of departure' in its relations with
Israel
, several diplomats say.
Throughout Israel's military campaign in Gaza the response of the EU to the conflict has been defined by its inability to agree on a response.
For a long period Spain and Ireland, as well as Belgium and Slovenia at times, were lonely outliers calling for the bloc to use what leverage it has to hold Israel accountable for the mounting deaths of Palestinian civilians.
More than 55,000 Palestinians have been killed during Israel's invasion of Gaza, which followed the October 7th, 2023 attacks by Hamas militants in southern Israel.
READ MORE
In a sign the tide of opinion had begun to shift against Israel, some 17 of the EU's 27 states last month backed a review into whether Israel's actions in Gaza had breached human rights commitments it signed up to, as part of an EU-Israel association agreement.
The agreement governing relations between the two has been in place since 2000. Crucially, it includes a free trade deal, which is economically valuable to Israel, given the EU is its biggest trading partner.
The EU review said
evidence 'indicates' Israel's actions in Gaza had breached its human rights obligations under the deal. Foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels on Monday to discuss the findings.
One big question mark is how
Israel's war with Iran
will shift the dynamics in the room when the doors close behind the ministers.
The Coalition of states who favour tougher consequences for Israel has grown to include Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal and
the Netherlands
.
The push to order a review of the EU-Israel deal was led by the Dutch, a traditional ally of Israel. The fact the move came from a government who previously sat in the middle ground of the debate probably convinced others to shift position. One of the union's two big powers, France, was also on board.
Just because 17 capitals voted in favour of a review taking place does not mean they will all agree about what should be done now.
'This group is not homogenous, there are those who would wish to see more immediate measures taken [and] those who still want to give Israel a chance to act,' one diplomat involved in negotiations said.
'It is clear that the grouping of 17 member states is not one big bloc ... I'm hopeful that most of that group will stay together,' another diplomat said.
Behind the scenes the Dutch are trying to keep the wide level of support intact, to secure a voting majority in support of some EU action to put pressure on Israel.
'We don't expect any decisions on Monday,' one EU diplomat said of the foreign ministers meeting.
Kaja Kallas, the EU's foreign affairs chief who chairs the meetings, will take soundings from the room about the findings of the review.
It is likely Ms Kallas will be asked to go away and prepare possible options to put on the table at the next meeting of foreign ministers on July 15th, several diplomatic sources said.
A group of nine states recently suggested the EU needs to do more to cut off trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the
West Bank
and other occupied Palestinian territories.
In a separate June 10th letter to Ms Kallas, the Swedish government said the EU should 'urgently' adopt sanctions targeting Israeli ministers who promote illegal settlements.
There had been signs that even Germany, one of Israel's biggest defenders, might be poised to change its position. That was before the fighting between Israel and Iran escalated so significantly.
Comments from German chancellor Friedrich Merz since then suggest the government is rowing in behind Israel, lowering the chances of Berlin supporting any EU penalties or sanction.
Hungary and the Czech Republic have consistently opposed the EU taking against Israel. That means suspending the EU-Israel agreement in full is off the table, given such a move would require the unanimous backing of all 27 states. Suspending elements of the deal may only require a majority.
One EU diplomat speculated recent strikes in Iran, which Israel justified as necessary to prevent Tehran developing nuclear weapons, should not divert the world's attention from the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The EU should be careful not to 'fall into the trap' and totally shift its focus, the diplomat said.
Agnes Bertrand Sanz of aid charity Oxfam said the cost of inaction by the EU would be measured in lives. 'Homes flattened, hospitals destroyed and looming famine ... There is no time for more debate,' she said.
The cumbersome process of agreeing on a common foreign policy position in a union of 27 governments, means any EU decision to sanction Israel – if a decision is taken – probably remains weeks or even months away.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
EU foreign ministers to meet over Middle East, Ukraine
EU foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels at the start of a week of high-level diplomacy on the Middle East and Ukraine, with the NATO summit in The Hague tomorrow and a summit of EU leaders on Thursday. Foreign ministers will give their initial response to an EU report which holds that Israel is in breach of its obligations under its trade arrangements with Europe due the conduct of its war in Gaza and its activities in the occupied West Bank. Ministers are also expected to reiterate calls for a de-escalation of the Israel-Iran crisis following the US bombing of key Iranian nuclear sites. Foreign ministers will begin with a briefing from the EU intelligence and situation centre on the unfolding crisis over Israel's attack on Iran, which has now been joined by the United States. In a statement, Tánaiste Simon Harris said he was deeply concerned by the very real risk of an extremely dangerous spiral of escalation in the Middle East following the US military action. He said the EU had a role in spearheading a diplomatic solution to the crisis. However, US President Donald Trump has made it clear he does not see any role for the European Union. Separately, foreign ministers will give their first assessment of a searing indictment of Israel's policy on Gaza and the West Bank in a report produced by the EU's Special Representative for Human Rights. The review, circulated to member states on Friday, held that Israel is in violation of Article 2 of the EU Israel Association Agreement, which binds both sides to human rights and international humanitarian law obligations. Last night, Israel dismissed the report as a "moral and methodological failure," saying it should be dismissed entirely. EU chief diplomat Kaja Kallas will take stock of how foreign ministers view the findings before briefing EU leaders later in the week. It seems likely that a menu of options to hold Israel to account - possibly including trade sanctions - will not be presented to foreign ministers until their next meeting in July.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Dublin Airport will eventually exceed 40 million passengers a year, Minister for Transport predicts
Imposing annual passenger caps on Dublin Airport will be 'arbitrary' as even the 40 million cap being sought by airport operator DAA will be surpassed within a short period, Minister for Transport Darragh O'Brien says. The cap of 32 million passengers a year, which has been in place since 2008, was breached in 2023 and 2024. Mr O'Brien said the number of passengers passing through the airport was likely to exceed 36 million this year. He said it was a clear aim in the Programme for Government to end the restriction on passenger numbers. READ MORE 'I want to see the cap in Dublin Airport removed. I think any artificial stifling of growth within Dublin Airport, it would be counterproductive for the country,' he said. Last week, Fingal County Council, which is the local authority with responsibility for the airport, issued an enforcement notice that gave DAA a two-year period to comply with the planning conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála in 2008. However, there is a High Court-imposed stay pending the outcome of proceedings taking by a number of airlines against the cap. Mr O'Brien said that stay was likely to remain until the second half of next year. He said the Government was now working on a new National Aviation Policy to address the issues of the volume of traffic around the State's main airport hub. He said a key ruling by An Bord Pleanála on night flights at the airport – expected within weeks – would be critical. At present no flights are allowed to take off from or land on the north runway between 11pm and 7am. The night-time movements of aircraft in the airport are restricted to 65 overall. DAA has applied for those restrictions to be eased and there is expectation that aircraft will be allowed on the north runway between 6am and midnight daily. This change has been strongly opposed by residents living in St Margaret's and The Ward, two communities located at the perimeter of the airport. Mr O'Brien, a TD for the constituency, said he was very conscious of the concerns of those communities and the challenges they faced. 'I've been at pains to say to DAA to operate under the good neighbour principle,' he said. He said some people in the St Margaret's area were in effect living right beside the runway. He said the airport should improve its voluntary purchase package as the impact was significant on a small number of households. 'They can't be forgotten,' he said. However, Mr O'Brien said the airport needed to expand and that included passenger numbers. He said if decision on night flights was in favour of expanding the hours then that would help passenger numbers grow. 'A total of 3 per cent of GDP comes from activity around the airport campus. It's a critical driver for economic growth, and supports about 20,000 jobs directly and about 130,000 indirect jobs.' He said basing numbers on forward projections over 10 years the number of passengers would exceed 40 million each year before then. 'One should ask the question, if DAA applies for a passenger cap of 40 million how long will that last? Is that cap going to be [surpassed]? Therefore should you have an arbitrary cap?' Mr O'Brien also said he had consulted Attorney General Rossa Fanning and may bring forward legislation to prevent what he sees as overly restrictive limits. He said the cap was put in 2008 as a response to inadequate transport infrastructure at the airport. He said the situation had changed since then, with a change in terms of roads, public transport and access.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
We like to romanticise Ireland's past, but too much remembering could be bad for us
There is no comparison between the Provisional IRA and the Irish Volunteers who staged the Easter Rising in 1916. Patrick Pearse's generation of republicans never set off bombs in crowded pubs or on shopping streets , indiscriminately murdering civilians. They never pulled people out of vehicles and shot them dead because they were Protestants . But there is one parallel that Gerry Adams was able to point to at his successful defamation case against the BBC : the Rising had no democratic legitimacy. When the issue of the Provisional movement's lack of electoral mandate for 'atrocities' was mentioned in court, Adams replied : 'Pádraig Pearse. James Connolly. The men and women who went out in 1916, they had no mandate for what they were doing.' Adams has a point, but it doesn't reflect well on the IRA of which he has always denied being a part. It reflects poorly on an ill-thought-out insurrection that the State now publicly reveres above any other episode in Ireland's journey to independence. Twenty years ago, then-taoiseach Bertie Ahern announced the reinstatement of an Easter Monday military parade at the General Post Office in Dublin. He said there was a need to 'reclaim' 1916 from hardline nationalists. But two decades on, has the move backfired? READ MORE Fr Séamus Murphy, who teaches philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, believes so. 'I don't demand that the State disown the men of 1916. But it has to stop praising them and calling their action the foundation of the State,' Murphy says. The Jesuit priest explores the question further in a new book Confronting the Irish Past: The 1912-1923 Decade in Light of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. It is an unusual work in that it tries to bring philosophical insights to bear on Irish history. Murphy, who has written extensively on just war theory and Irish neutrality, asks some deep questions about the ethics of commemoration: What duties do we have to our ancestors? How much commemoration is too much? Is there a hierarchy of 'emotional hurt' from historical events? Murphy examines the work of the German Jewish political philosopher Hannah Arendt , who believed history 'needed not so much to be explained as to be confronted'. This meant, among other things, acknowledging the 'ongoing impact' of events – and how political violence leaves a scar on society that can be unpicked in the future. Too much remembering can have negative effects on a population. In Northern Ireland , people were horrified at the recent clashes with police officers during street protests. But the thuggery was not entirely surprising in a province where two communities have been glorifying acts of violence for decades. Elsewhere in the world, commemoration of historical victimhood can be weaponised to commit crimes against humanity. 'It's a human thing. We remember our people's sufferings, while being indifferent to those of others, including the sufferings our tribe or nation inflict on the others. In the latter case, we can be inclined to say: they had it coming, they deserved it,' says Murphy. Ultimately, the question arises: who is history meant to serve – the living or the dead? 'It is bad for us to behave in the present as if our ancestors, dead grandparents, etc, no longer mattered in any sense. It would be treating them with contempt. Same goes for how we behave in the present with respect to how it would likely affect future generations,' says Murphy. But we should not be afraid to adapt history 'for the needs of the living'. That includes foregrounding the celebration of those events that pave the way for the future we wish to see. 'The nationalist side – our people – has to acknowledge that, just as Sinn Féin /IRA's political enemy in Northern Ireland from the 1970s to today was the SDLP – or any other party with a significant nationalist following – so the political target of the 1916 Rising was not the British government or the Ulster unionists but the Home Rule party,' says Murphy. ' John Redmond and the Home Rule party were moving, slowly, to doing a Bertie Ahern and signing a Good Friday Agreement, recognising that unionists couldn't be compelled into a united Ireland. The Rising is the scream of rage against that. We can't – without engaging in massive pretence – claim to endorse the Rising and the Good Friday Agreement with no qualification: they contradict each other at several points.' Here lies a test for all of us. To create a shared future on this island, and internationally, we must move beyond uncritically celebrating the actions of any particular tribe. Standing in our way is an imagined moral duty to people who are long dead and who had their own flaws. Surely our overriding moral duty is for the living? [ How Tuam, synonymous with a dark side of Irish history, can finally 'do the right thing' Opens in new window ] WB Yeats 's line 'Was it for this ... that all that blood was shed?' has an emotional force in debates on Ireland's future. But, says Murphy, 'just as you shouldn't feel compelled by your dead parents' wish that you should become a neurosurgeon – or a priest – so a political agenda of a previous generation cannot compel today's political action. Your parents have no right to say – adapting Yeats – to you, if you choose to be a journalist rather than what they wanted: was it for this that we made all those sacrifices?'
