In a closely watched decision on Monday, the Foreign Ministers of the 27 European Union (EU) member states agreed to initiate consultations with Israel under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, alleging that there are “indications” of human rights breaches in Gaza, particularly affecting civilians and aid access. While the decision stopped short of suspending the agreement, it signals growing political pressure on Israel to improve conditions for civilians amid the ongoing war with Hamas.
What You Need to Know About the Association Agreement:
Signed in 1995, the EU-Israel Association Agreement provides the legal and political foundation for bilateral relations. It facilitates political dialogue, promotes economic cooperation, and supports collaboration across a wide range of sectors.
The agreement grants Israel preferential access to the EU single market, including the elimination of tariffs on industrial products and reduced trade barriers for agricultural goods. It also enables Israeli participation in numerous EU programs, particularly in the fields of scientific research, innovation, and education.
WJC Advocacy Ahead of the Decision:
Ahead of the meeting, the WJC, together with several other Jewish organizations, urged Members of the European Parliament and Members of National Parliaments to sign an open letter addressed to top EU officials. The letter called on the EU to reject any steps that could suspend or weaken the Association Agreement and emphasized the importance of continued engagement with Israel as a path to promoting peace, stability, and human rights in the region.
WJC’s Reaction:
Following the decision by the 27 EU Foreign Ministers, WJC Executive Vice President Maram Stern issued the following statement:
“While we welcome that the EU choose continued engagement over suspension, initiating Article 2 consultations amid ongoing conflict risks undermining the values this partnership was built on. As Israel defends itself against Iran and its terrorist proxies and works tirelessly to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas, the European Union should be standing firmly with its only democratic partner in the region—not opening a process that casts doubt on that partnership. Rather than reinforcing shared democratic values and a decades-long relationship based on trust and cooperation, this move risks empowering those who reject peace and exploit human rights rhetoric to delegitimize Israel.”
What the EU Had to Say:
Following the meeting, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasized that the European Union's priorities include achieving a full ceasefire, ensuring humanitarian access, and securing the release of all hostages. She noted that she remains in regular contact with Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Gideon Sa’ar, and stressed, “Our first goal is to change the situation on the ground and help the humanitarian aid get in and help the people. So today was the beginning of the debate and not the end.”
While no concrete sanctions or formal recommendations were announced, the EU signaled that it would continue to monitor the situation closely. Foreign Ministers of EU member states are expected to revisit the issue next month, where they will determine whether further action is warranted.
Israel’s Response:
Jerusalem strongly rejected the EU review as “biased and one-sided,” calling it a “moral and methodological failure.” In a statement, the Foreign Ministry emphasized that Israel is engaged in an existential struggle against multiple enemy fronts, including with Iran and its terrorist proxies, and criticized the EU’s rushed and imbalanced assessment.
The statement condemned the EU review‘s failure to reflect the strategic and humanitarian complexities of the war, including Hamas’ deliberate use of civilian areas for military purposes, the indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians, and Israel’s sustained efforts to facilitate humanitarian aid—even under fire. According to the Ministry, the EU’s decision to proceed without properly incorporating Israel’s detailed responses undermines the credibility of the process and disregards the realities on the ground.
