Fears of explosive encounter as Trump meets South Africa's Ramaphosa

US President Donald Trump receives South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House today, for what some observers think could be the most explosive encounter since that notorious meeting with Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelensky.
Mr Ramaphosa comes to the US as the president in office of the G20 - a grouping of 19 large, globally significant countries alongside the EU and the African Union.
But President Trump is threatening to boycott the G20 summit in South Africa in November - a symptom of sharply deteriorating relations between the US and South Africa.
However, it is another group of countries - the BRICS - and South Africa's role in it that is one of the leading points of tension between the countries.
The others are Gaza and Israel, and the Trump administration's claims of a white genocide in South Africa.
It is this claim, which has been utterly rejected by the South African government, that saw the arrival of some 50 Afrikaners - white South Africans of Dutch heritage - into the United States last week.
At a time when the US has shut down refugee programmes for countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and sub-Saharan Africa, and is in the process of ending the protected status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the US, who now face deportation, the arrival of a small group of white South Africans as a new refugee group has raised eyebrows.
The Episcopal Church - the Anglican Church in North America - has said it will end its 40-year-old resettlement programme with the US government in protest at the preferential treatment of white Afrikaners.
The Anglican church in South Africa was once led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leading opponent of apartheid, while the American church said its commitment to racial justice was a moral imperative, according to reporting by National Public Radio.
The policy the Episcopal Church is so outraged by started on 7 February, when President Trump signed an Executive Order directing that Afrikaners be treated as refugees fleeing from "government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation".
This claim was based on a 2024 expropriation law, which the Trump administration says is to be used to take land from white farmers and give it to black farmers.
The South African government says the act is a sort of compulsory purchase power, similar in scope to "eminent domain" in US law, which empowers federal and state governments to take ownership of pieces of land for projects deemed to be for the greater good, typically for infrastructure projects like roads, railways, dams and bridges.
The administration went further, claiming that the law was part of an attempt to drive the white population from South Africa, and the executive order granted fast track refugee status to Afrikaners who apply for asylum in the US.
It also cut off US government aid and investment to South Africa.
The administration says there are systematic attacks on white farmers in South Africa, part of a violent campaign to drive them from the land.
This is denied by the South African government and by Afrikaner farming bodies such as TLU SA, an Afrikaner agriculture union.
It says the problem is South Africa's notoriously high crime rate, and that all races are its victims.
According to police statistics cited by the Associated Press news agency, 12 murders happened on South African farms last year.
One of those killed was a farmer. The rest were farm workers, people staying on the farm and one security guard. They do not record the racial profile of the victims.
That is in the context of around 75 recorded killings every day in South Africa. The vast majority of the victims are black and poor.
Although the apartheid regime ended in 1994, white South Africans continue to enjoy higher average living standards than most South Africans.
White South Africans, who make up 7% of the population, own 72% of farm land, while black South Africans own just 15%. The South African government says there have been no forcible sales of land. Land transfers that have taken place have seen white farmers bought out at market prices.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vigorously defended the Trump administration's decision to admit white South Africans to the US after cutting off access for refugees from the rest of the world in a hearing in the US Senate foreign relations committee yesterday.
"I think that the United States has a right to allow people into this country and prioritise the allowance of who they want to allow to come in," Mr Rubio told Democratic Senator Tim Kaine.
"Even based on the colour of somebody's skin?" asked Senator Kaine, to which Mr Rubio replied, "you are the one that is talking about the colour of their skin. Not me."
"They thought that their farms were being burned down. I think that's a pretty good justification for wanting to come. They're afraid for their lives," Mr Rubio added.
Some have pointed to the influence of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was born and raised in South Africa, in leading President Trump to his strongly held view on how Afrikaners are treated in post-apartheid South Africa.
Yesterday, the South African side let it be known that they will make an offer to allow Mr Musk's Starlink satellite-based internet service to operate in South Africa.
Mr Musk has said that Starlink is not allowed to operate in South Africa because he is white.
The country's post-apartheid economic laws generally require businesses operating in the country to be 30% black owned in order to develop a black business owning community after decades of apartheid.
The Trump administration has signalled that it may press Mr Ramaphosa to exclude US companies from the black ownership rules.
But it is far from the only friction point. The same executive order that granted Afrikaners special refugee rights also decried the South African government's stance on Gaza and Israel.
It particularly dislikes South Africa's case against Israel at the International Criminal Court, which accuses the Israeli government of war crimes in Gaza.
The February executive order says: "South Africa has taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice, and reinvigorating its relations with Iran to develop commercial, military, and nuclear arrangements."
It is not the only foreign policy row between them.
Dating back to the Biden administration, the US has been critical of South Africa for not condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
It has also abstained in UN votes criticising Russia for attacking its neighbour.
South Africa has denied US claims that it has supplied weapons to Russia to use in its war on Ukraine. The country has also held joint military exercises with Russia and China, again earning its displeasure from the United States.
Then there is the BRICS group - originally comprising the countries that give us the acronym: Brazil, Russia, India and China. They have been joined by some other big regional players - Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and South Africa.
As a group they have sought to loosen their dependence on the US dollar in trade, leading to accusations from the Trump administration that the so-called "de-dollarisation" is an effort to weaken the dollar's international role.
To some, the grouping is an alternative to the G7, the big wealthy industrialised democracies - the US, Canada, Japan, UK, Italy, France, Germany and the "Eighth member", the EU.
To others, the BRICS are a somewhat incoherent group of countries with little in common apart from a dislike of the US and its dominant role in world affairs.
Now the US is led by a president that dislikes the BRICS, and is determined to snuff out anything that looks like a threat to the US dollar.
South Africa, as one of the weaker members of the BRICS, is an easy one to beat up on right at the start of the second Trump administration, and send early messages to the rest of the group.
President Ramaphosa has a difficult path to negotiate.
He told reporters in Washington on his arrival yesterday that he is looking forward to discussions with President Trump and that he would like to keep the US on board for the G20 summit later in the year.
Mr Rubio has already snubbed a G20 foreign ministers meeting in South Africa while President Trump is on track to boycott the summit itself. Can Mr Ramaphosa do anything to change his mind?
The other issue the South African leader is hoping for some relief on is tariffs. In particular the tariffs on automobile exports to the US.
The 25% car import tariff could hit South Africa hard.
The US is the third biggest export market for South African-made vehicles from companies including Ford, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes.
Last year that trade was worth $1.8 billion (€1.5 billion) to South Africa.
It does have more durable exports such as gold, diamonds, platinum and iridium, and may offer a rare earths export deal to the US as well.
Mr Ramaphosa said trade and investment was what has brought him to the US today, playing into Mr Trump's well known desire to negotiate business deals.
"We want to come out with a trade and investment deal," Mr Ramaphosa said.
He also said he will explain South Africa's foreign policy positions, particularly on Israel and Ukraine, adding, "we are very rational when it comes to foreign policy discussions".

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Irish Examiner

an hour ago

• Irish Examiner

Israel-Iran war stretches into a second week without diplomatic breakthrough

Hours of talks aimed at de-escalating fighting between Israel and Iran failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough as the war entered its second week with a fresh round of strikes between the two adversaries. European ministers and Iran's top diplomat met for four hours on Friday in Geneva, as President Donald Trump continued to weigh US military involvement and worries rose over potential strikes on nuclear reactors. European officials expressed hope for future negotiations, and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said he was open to further dialogue while emphasising that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the US while Israel continued attacking. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes,' he told reporters. Benjamin Netanyahu visits the site of the Weizmann Institute of Science, which was hit by missiles fired from Iran (Jack Guez/Pool Photo via AP) No date was set for the next round of talks. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear programme and arsenal of ballistic missiles. Israel's top general echoed the warning, saying the Israeli military was ready 'for a prolonged campaign'. But Mr Netanyahu's goal could be out of reach without US help. Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered to be out of reach to all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Mr Trump said he would put off deciding whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran for up to two weeks. The war between Israel and Iran erupted on June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multi-tiered air defences, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Israel's defence minister said on Saturday it killed a commander in Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard who financed and armed Hamas in preparation for the October 7 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the 20-month long war in Gaza. Israel said Saeed Izadi was commander of the Palestine Corps for the Iranian Quds Force, an elite arm of the Guard that conducts military and intelligence operations outside Iran, and that he was killed in an apartment in the city of Qom.

RTÉ News​

2 hours ago

• RTÉ News​

Putin's counter-narratives and stalled talks

If you were to only listen to Russian President Vladimir Putin's account of the war in Ukraine (as many millions of Russians do), you might conclude that Russia somehow stumbled into the conflict unwittingly, almost as if it were forced to invade its neighbour. Russia's leader told reporters at this week's St Petersburg International Economic Forum that he had told former US President Joe Biden during one of their last phone conversations (clearly, just before Moscow began its full-scale invasion in February 2022), that "conflicts, especially hot conflicts, must be avoided, and that all issues should be resolved through peaceful means." It was a brazen-faced claim from the man who started the largest conventional war in Europe since World War II. Mr Putin, just like current US President Donald Trump, is running a narrative that the Biden administration was at fault for not trying to stop a war that, in truth, Russia was hell-bent on starting anyway. Since returning to the White House in January, Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the conflict is "Biden's war". Mr Trump has also repeatedly claimed that the war would not have started if he had been president. On this hypothetical point, Mr Putin, is now in agreement too. "Indeed, had Trump been the president, perhaps this conflict would not have happened. I fully acknowledge that possibility," said the Russian leader during the same press event on Thursday in St Petersburg. What Mr Putin really means is: the Biden administration opposed Russia's demands to subjugate Ukraine, whereas Mr Trump, had he been the US president in the months leading up to February 2022, would have been more likely to pressure Ukraine to give in to Russia's demands. For his part, Mr Trump blames another former US President, Barack Obama, also a Democrat, for not dealing with Russia a decade ago. At the G7 meeting in the Canadian Rockies earlier this week, he said the war in Ukraine would not have happened if Russia had still been a member of the club, or G8 as it was known. (Russia was kicked out of the G8 in 2014 after its illegal annexation of Crimea). Despite Mr Trump's claims about how he could have averted the war from starting had he been president, he has failed in his promise to end it quickly since returning to the White House in January. It was always an unrealistic pledge. To its credit, the US, aided by Turkey, managed to get both Ukraine and Russia to hold two sets of brief, but direct talks in Istanbul in May, albeit at a low diplomatic level. Getting Ukraine to the table was never an issue. As early as the second week of March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had said his country was ready to sign up to a US proposal to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. The barrier to any ceasefire deal has been Russia, which has repeatedly rejected the US and European-backed ceasefire proposal. Those two sets of direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations last month in Istanbul have delivered large-scale prisoner exchanges, humanitarian gestures that do just about enough to keep the US engaged in the process. But otherwise, the talks are at a standstill. Russia is talking about a third set of direct talks, but the Ukrainian side say they have heard nothing from Moscow. Yesterday, at the same conference in St Petersburg, Mr Putin said, as he has done previously, that he considers Russians and Ukrainians to be "one people". "In that sense the whole of Ukraine is ours," he said. That statement shows that Russia's position has not changed since it launched the war. It still disregards Ukraine's sovereignty, although Mr Putin also says that Russia is not seeking Ukraine's capitulation. According to Ukraine's first deputy foreign minister Serhii Kyslytsia, during the second meeting in Instanbul, the head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky, described the war as "Russians killing Russians". Mr Medinsky, an ultranationalist historian, has previously questioned the existence of the Ukrainian and Mr Putin's decision to appoint him as the head of the Russian delegation is a clear signal that Moscow has no intention to negotiate. "The talks in Istanbul have demonstrated that Russia has no interest in pursuing peace and is pursuing its maximalist demands," Peter Dickinson, a Kyiv-based editor of the Atlantic Council's Ukraine Alert, told RTÉ News. Instead of pursuing peace, Russia, emboldened by a lack of pressure from the US to end the war, is intensifying its drone and missile assaults on Ukrainian cities. Last Tuesday morning's deadly Russian drone and missile assault on Kyiv – a nine-hour assault and the largest so far this year – killed 30 people and injured more than 170. Twenty-three of the victims, a death toll that included children, were residents of a 9-storey block of flats in the city's western suburb of Solomianskyi. It was struck by a Russian missile. "I think people in Kyiv are very alarmed about the rising number of attacks," said Mr Dickinson. "There's a feeling that people are sitting ducks". This week, Mr Putin also said that he was willing to meet with Mr Zelensky during a final phase of negotiations. However, he quickly followed that statement by questioning the legitimacy of Mr Zelensky's presidency – a long-running Kremlin propaganda narrative that Mr Trump briefly bought into back in March, wrongly labelling the Ukrainian president as "a dictator without elections". Russia argues that Ukraine must hold new presidential elections given that Mr Zelensky's term as president officially ended in May 2024. It was the stuff of more counter-narrative fantasy. Mr Zelensky is a democratically elected leader whereas Russia's elections are rigged like a piece of scripted theatre. While Mr Putin continues his counter-narratives and Russia continues its attacks, Ukraine is still pursuing its strategy of calling for a ceasefire first before there is any talk over territorial issues. Mr Zelensky had arrived in the Canadian Rockies for the G7 meeting on Tuesday - the same day that Russia launched its massive drone and missile on Kyiv - hoping to get some face time with Mr Trump. But his long journey had been in vain. Mr Trump had left early to deal with the escalating situation in the Middle East, according to the White House. And so Mr Zelensky ended up meeting his European partners (plus Canada's new PM Mark Carney), just as he could have done in Europe. Mr Trump's departure may have been a coincidence but, either way, it demonstrated just how low down Ukraine features on the US president's list of priorities. "As of now, no productive talks are possible," said Oleksandr Kraiev, a Ukrainian foreign policy expert at the Ukrainian Prism thinktank in Kyiv. The West, he argues, needs to considering targeting Russia's trading partners in Asia, particularly China, with "proper second-grade sanctions" in order to pressure Moscow to stop the war. "The idea from the Ukrainian side is to find a new format that could change the pressure on Russia," said Mr Kraeiv. That new diplomatic format would need Europe to play more of a role in pressuring Russia to seriously negotiate given the Trump administration's reluctance to introduce new sanctions on Moscow. But more than a month after the leaders of France, Germany, Poland and the UK travelled to Kyiv and gave Russia a 48-hour ultimatum to agree to a ceasefire (or face new sanctions and increased military aid to Kyiv), the steam seems to have run out of European efforts to up the pressure on Russia. Mr Putin had torpedoed that ultimatum by offering direct talks in Istanbul, which Mr Trump approved. 'The Coalition of the Willing', a British and French-led initiative to shore up support for a European peace monitoring force in a post-war scenario, has gone quiet too, perhaps waiting for the outcome of this week's NATO annual summit in The Hague. Crucially, it also lacked US support. "The question now is how do you get Russia to be interested in peace," said Mr Dickinson, who believes it's "futile" to expect the US to make the breakthrough. "Now it's up to Europe to step up and take action but there is still no political will".

RTÉ News​

3 hours ago

• RTÉ News​

The EU's indictment of Israel in Gaza: the hard work begins

The review into whether Israel is in violation of its obligations under its trade relations with the European Union, due to its conduct of the war in Gaza, was shrouded in secrecy and hobbled by last minute timing. National capitals only got the assessment late on Friday afternoon - foreign ministers are supposed to give a detailed response at a meeting in Brussels on Monday. Diplomats complained about having little time to assess the review's contents. The less time they have, the more potential for a divisive debate at the Monday meeting. The paper was circulated not long before EU ambassadors were scheduled to meet to discuss it at 6.30pm Brussels time on last night. "Until a few days ago, we had no idea if it would be just an oral presentation," an EU diplomat said yesterday morning. "Now we have confirmation it will be a written report, which for us is extremely important. The value of a written report is greater." The review was ordered by the EU's Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas after a majority of EU foreign ministers supported a Dutch proposal last month to assess whether Israel was in breach of the human rights and international humanitarian law obligations enshrined in Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The review was carried out by the EU's Special Representative for Human Rights. It essentially collated existing findings produced by a plethora of UN bodies. Yet, over seven pages it was a searing indictment of Israel's alleged failure to abide by human rights law, and the rules governing the protection of civilians during war, both in Gaza and the West Bank. It focused on Israel's complete blockade of any food, medicine and fuel entering Gaza for 11 weeks from 2 March, before Israel eventually permitted a "militarised" food distribution service which was accompanied by "deadly" shootings of Palestinians. Since the Hamas 7 October attacks, discrimination, oppression, and violence against Palestinians had increased in the West Bank, with a "significant increase in Palestinian fatalities" and attacks by Israeli settlers, accompanied by "sustained settlement expansion". There were road closures, checkpoints, and barriers that "permanently or intermittently restrict the movement of Palestinians across the West Bank." These increasingly undermined Palestinians' access to livelihoods, healthcare, education and other essential services. The "unprecedented level of killing and injury of civilians" in Gaza was "a direct consequence of the Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) failure to comply with fundamental principles of [International Humanitarian Law]". The report said of the verified Palestinian deaths caused by attacks on residential buildings in Gaza, 44% were children - "mainly young children and babies." The fact that these deaths did not reflect the demographic of Hamas combatants "points to indiscriminate attacks." The use of heavy weapons, including airstrikes, on civilian shelters (including tent encampments and schools) "raise concerns about Israel's compliance with the principles of precautions in attack, and proportionality". Attacks on hospitals and medical centres in Gaza included "direct strikes, sieges, the use of snipers, raids, and the apparent arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of medical staff, patients and their companions, and internally displaced persons (IDPs) sheltering at hospitals", and the killing of many emergency medical workers. Israel had failed to comply with binding International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings in early 2024 to provide humanitarian aid in Rafah "with a view to prevent the commission of acts within the scope of the Genocide Convention." And on the review goes… Needless to say, the report found that Israel's obligations under human rights and international law to protect civilians were in breach, as were its obligations under Article 2 of its agreement with the EU. Ireland and Spain first highlighted concerns last year that Israel was in breach of Article 2. The trenchant support for Israel by Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others meant there was no consensus for a review to take place. That changed after the Israel-Hamas ceasefire collapsed in March and the IDF intensified its assault on Gaza, including the prolonged humanitarian blockade. Dutch foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp revived the Irish-Spanish initiative in April, and at a meeting of his counterparts in May, the pendulum swung in favour of action. 17 member states - including Ireland - supported a review of Article 2 compliance (two countries joined the list afterwards); sentiment at EU level was clearly shifting. Yet, the divisions remain. Despite last night's report, we are in for a protracted period of step-by-step diplomacy. Ms Kallas will canvas the views of 27 foreign ministers on Monday, and then brief EU leaders during their summit in Brussels next Thursday. Yesterday, diplomats were emphasising the need for unity. So sensitive is the Israel-Gaza issue, that a menu of options against Israel will be kept off the table for now. "There are those among the 17 (member states) who wanted the review but who don't actually want any measures against Israel to be taken," says a senior EU official. "They want to use this as a way of applying pressure to Israel. There are those who definitely want measures to be taken, and there are those who didn't even want the review in the first place." A senior EU diplomat, from a country in favour of the review, said: "It's clear what needs to happen: first of all, we want as broad agreement as possible on the outcome of the review. We know it will not be unanimous, it will not be consensual, but we hope that a big group of member states can subscribe to the conclusion of the review." That would, in theory, allow Ms Kallas to take the findings to the Israelis and use the threat of punitive measures to encourage Israel to massively increase humanitarian support and to move towards a ceasefire. Preserving unity next week will be challenging. When EU ambassadors had their first meeting on the forthcoming review on Wednesday, the divisions were already clear. "You could see the different positions of member states reflected in the more procedural interventions," says one diplomat. "The Irish, Belgians, Spanish and Slovenians were pushing for an immediate discussion among ministers about next steps and consequences, whereas others were fiercely pushing back on that: the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Germans and - to a lesser extent - the Italians." It is understood the Irish government initially wanted Ms Kallas to lean towards some kind of list of options the EU could take against Israel, now that it had been found in violation of Article 2. However, Dublin had apparently accepted the prevailing view that unity was vital and that the threat of further action could convince Israel to change its policy towards humanitarian aid, and towards a ceasefire. In this scenario, we would have to wait for a meeting of EU foreign ministers in July before Ms Kallas presents a range of options Europe could take. In a statement, Tánaiste Simon Harris welcomed the findings of the review. "Ireland has always been clear that any such review can only reach one conclusion – there is clear evidence that Israel is in breach of its obligations under Article 2 of the Agreement. We now expect the EU and its Member States to take concrete actions in follow up to the review." External events could also derail any consensus building. Diplomats stressed the need to keep the Article 2 issue separate from the Israel-Iran war raging in the background. "It's part of Israel's strategy to divert attention from what is happening in Gaza and in Palestine," says one diplomat. "That's precisely what we don't want. The situation in Gaza and Palestine is absolutely critical, and we need to keep a very strong focus on it." "On the Iran-Israel issue," says another diplomat, "some foreign ministers will make the point that given what's happening, perhaps we should hold off on the review, hold off on making this an issue in our conversation with Israel. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time." There is also growing frustration - shared in Dublin - at those EU capitals which have emphasised quiet diplomacy with Israel. One source suggested that "whispering to the Israelis" had yet to deliver any meaningful response in 18 months of the Gaza war. Pressure is building elsewhere. This week, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot spearheaded a joint letter - co-signed by Tánaiste Simon Harris, as well as the foreign ministers of Finland, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden - calling on Ms Kallas to ensure that the EU is compliant with last summer's ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. The advisory opinion held that Israel's occupation was illegal, and that countries were obliged to ensure they did not support the occupation through trade. The Belgian initiative chimes with the Irish government's view that the ICJ ruling is binding on EU member states and that a ban on products from illegal settlements is effectively a legal obligation (ie, the legal impetus for the Occupied Territories Bill). Belgium expects other countries to join the call. A senior diplomat from one member state said his government was in favour of the Belgian initiative, but preferred not to sign the letter given that its recommendation - banning settlement products - was one of the "options" that could put pressure on fragile EU unity. The private view within the European Commission is that the EU is broadly in line with the ICJ ruling. However, the Commission has sent a number of legal opinions to the member state working group on international judicial affairs (COJUR). "The issue has been back and forth without any consensus," says a senior EU official. "It's never reached the political level, but it's been discussed by diplomats." The Belgian letter essentially calls for Ms Kallas - who represents both the Commission and member states - to speed the process up. It urges the Commission to bring forward measures to ensure that member states are in compliance, given that the "European Union is founded on the values as stated in the UN Charter, such as the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights…[and that] all EU Member States are parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice." Whether the Commission will introduce new legislation to reflect the growing clamour - as reflected in the Occupied Territories Bill - for a ban on goods coming from illegal Israeli settlements remains to be seen. One source suggests that the Commission could provide for individual member states to make their own national arrangements. The fact that the review of Israel's conduct, for so long a disregarded Irish-Spanish gambit, has finally happened and does not pull any punches is, relative to the EU's tortuous policy on Gaza, an achievement. However, the length of time it has taken to hold Israel to account, and the fact that even now a punitive response could take several months, will further call into question the EU's moral backbone, with the death toll in Gaza standing at over 56,000, according to Palestinian authorities. The fact that the EU's role in foreign policy necessarily gives each member states a veto (foreign policy is normally a fundamental expression of national sovereignty) is of meagre comfort to those who believe Europe should have done more and done it quicker. Diplomats are increasingly frustrated that in the generational challenges of our time - Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Israel's response to the Hamas October 7 attacks - the EU's voice has been blunted by division and national vetoes. In the event that Ms Kallas does provide a menu of responses to foreign ministers in July, it is by no means clear what happens next. The EU has never taken action against a trade partner for such a breach of a trade agreement. A full suspension of the Association Agreement would require unanimity, with a Hungarian, German and Czech veto almost certain. There has been speculation that suspending elements of EU Israel trade would only require a so-called Qualified Majority Vote (QMV). On the basis of the 19 countries which supported a review, that qualified majority could be reached. However, one EU official questioned whether even this would be possible. "Even suspending some trade could be seen as a sanctions measure, and that would therefore require unanimity," said the official. "We've also discussed a complete ban on trade with Israel, and that would be against our WTO obligations - so that is a non starter." For any measure to be taken it would require a proposal from the European Commission, meaning the issue runs - once again - straight into national divisions. On only two occasions in the history of the EU has an issue gone to a vote among the College of 27 commissioners (each from a member state) since the body strives for consensus. There is no doubt that attitudes to Israel have hardened, even among its traditional allies. Last month, the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in a TV interview: "What the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip, I no longer understand the goal. To harm the civilian population in such a way … can no longer be justified as a fight against terrorism." Whether this pressure, which should be amplified by the publication of the review, makes any difference to Israel's conduct remains an open question.