A powerful message echoed through the streets of Brussels recently: over 20,000 people marched through the Belgian capital, demanding an end to the bloodshed in Gaza and calling on the European Union to take a tougher stance against Israel. Their demands were clear: halt arms exports to Israel, push for an immediate ceasefire, re-evaluate diplomatic and economic relations, and finally recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
A few days later, the protests were echoed in an open letter that made headlines across Belgium. Under the banner “Not in Our Name,” around two dozen Jewish intellectuals condemned the common practice of dismissing any criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitic. Their message: our voices should not be co-opted to justify policies that violate basic human rights.
The growing public pressure has inevitably reached the political arena. When EU foreign ministers gathered in Brussels, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza dominated the agenda. But despite the mounting protests and widespread concern across Europe, there is little to suggest the EU is preparing for a major shift in its Israel policy.
While there is broad consensus that the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population is intolerable, the 27 member states remain deeply divided over what concrete consequences, if any, should follow. Once again, calls for a ceasefire and for unimpeded humanitarian access were issued—but beyond such appeals, consensus remains elusive.
One potential lever is the EU-Israel Association Agreement, in place since 2000. It is far more than a trade deal: it governs close political, economic, and scientific cooperation and explicitly states in Article 2 that the partnership is based on “respect for human rights and democratic principles.”
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged her colleagues to re-examine this framework in light of the war in Gaza. With mounting civilian casualties, the destruction of hospitals and schools, and a worsening humanitarian catastrophe, Kallas posed the central question: can the EU still justify a privileged partnership with Israel under these conditions? Or has Israel crossed a line, violating the very principles on which the agreement rests?
But here too, no consensus is in sight. Countries such as Ireland and Spain are demanding a tougher response. Others—including Germany, Austria, and the Czech Republic—continue to stand firmly by Israel. The reality is that suspending the agreement would require unanimity—an unlikely prospect given the range of national interests and geopolitical calculations at play.
So for now, the EU’s position remains largely rhetorical. The Union condemns the suffering of Palestinians, urges adherence to international law, and demands humanitarian aid. But any real political shift remains out of reach. Protesters in Brussels—and the Jewish signatories of the open letter—will likely have to keep repeating their demands.
The debate over the Association Agreement was reignited by a letter from Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp to Kaja Kallas. In his view, Israel’s intensification of the war and its obstruction of aid deliveries render the agreement void. Veldkamp’s stance sparked outrage from far-right leader Geert Wilders, the dominant force in the new Dutch government. But the Christian Democrat and former Dutch ambassador to Israel remains unfazed: it is precisely the responsibility of long-time friends, he argues, to hold Israel to account.
Veldkamp found support in French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, who called on the European Commission to assess whether the agreement remains viable. But regardless of the Commission’s findings, significant decisions remain unlikely. They require unanimity—and several governments, including those of Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, and notably Germany, remain opposed.
Germany, once seen as Israel’s staunchest ally in Europe, has undergone a subtle but significant shift. In her final months in office, Green foreign minister Annalena Baerbock adopted a more critical tone, voicing concern over Israel’s conduct in Gaza. This recalibration altered Berlin’s image in Brussels—from unflinching defender to a more nuanced actor.
Even so, Baerbock upheld a key principle shared by many EU diplomats: it is better to maintain dialogue with Israel than to risk a diplomatic breakdown. And her successor, conservative Johann Wadephul of the CDU, appears even more committed to traditional solidarity. During a visit to Israel, he did caution against reliance on military force alone—but also reaffirmed Germany’s “special responsibility” toward the Jewish state, leaving little room for a change in course.
This position also shapes Berlin’s stance on another divisive issue: the recognition of Palestine. While Spain and Ireland have formally recognized Palestinian statehood, Germany rejects such symbolic moves. A common EU approach remains out of reach.
French President Emmanuel Macron is now attempting to break the deadlock with a diplomatic initiative of his own. In June, France and Saudi Arabia will co-host a major international conference in New York aimed at reviving the two-state solution. Macron’s idea: Arab states would recognize Israel’s right to exist; in return, European countries—France foremost among them—would recognize Palestine. But in Brussels, Macron’s solo effort has drawn little enthusiasm. Some diplomats dismiss it as a “one-man show.”
Belgium, at least, has signaled support—though largely to paper over domestic divisions. The ruling coalition was thrown into turmoil by the war in Gaza. Social Democrats and Christian Democrats accused Israel of committing “genocide” and demanded immediate recognition of Palestine. Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s conservatives and the Liberals resisted fiercely. The resulting compromise: a resolution calling for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and long-term support for a two-state solution. Belgium, in this moment, reflects the EU in miniature—divided, uncertain, and stuck between moral outrage and geopolitical caution.
At the Warsaw foreign ministers’ meeting, EU chief diplomat Kallas openly admitted the “enormous frustration” among member states over their inability to stop the violence—or even agree on a coherent response. Her predecessor, Josep Borrell, has expressed similar frustrations—though now, freed from the constraints of office, he is more outspoken than ever. In a recent interview, Borrell accused Israel of committing genocide and lambasted Europe’s failure to act. “Europe,” he said, “has utterly discredited itself in the eyes of the world. We have shown that Palestinian lives simply don’t matter to us.”
