How Borrell’s Palestine proposal tested EU’s moral standing

Earlier this week, the European Union foreign ministers rejected a proposal by foreign policy chief Josep Borrell to suspend the bloc’s diplomatic dialogue with Israel during a meeting in Brussels.

Ahead of the meeting, Borrell had written to the ministers, citing “serious concerns about possible breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”

However, the suspension required unanimous approval from all 27 EU member states, and it was an unlikely scenario given the unconditional support some European countries extend to Israel, regardless of its record of war crimes.

Arming, financing, and supporting a country carrying out genocide signals Europe’s shared complicity, according to Ramzy Baroud, a US-Palestinian journalist, an author and editor of Palestine Chronicle.

"Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement obligates signatories to uphold human rights and democratic principles domestically and internationally," he says.

"Many EU members have played a major role enabling Israel by funding, legitimising, and backing and sustaining its war crimes at every step,” Baroud tells TRT World.

Despite its slim chances, Borrell’s proposal marked a significant moment for the EU by invoking the legally binding human rights provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a pact that has been in effect since June 2000.

As per the agreement, both parties are obliged to uphold human rights and democratic principles. Referencing it, Borrell signalled that continued silence on Israel's actions in Gaza risks undermining the EU’s credibility.

Speaking at his final press briefing as the EU’s foreign policy chief, Borrell described the “apocalyptic” conditions in Gaza and the worsening humanitarian crisis in Lebanon as the causes of his proposal for suspension.

“Most member states, however, believed it was better to maintain a diplomatic and political relationship with Israel. As expected, the decision was not taken.”

Even so, the bloc’s top diplomat emphasised that his proposal was meant to send a strong signal of concern about Israel’s conduct in the war.

“At the very least, I laid all the information on the table—evidence from the UN and every international organisation operating in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon—so that member states could judge how this war is being waged,” he concluded.

No united position

Since October 7, Israel has repeatedly violated international law in Gaza, with many of its actions extensively documented over months qualifying as genocide against Palestinians.

Despite mounting evidence, the EU has struggled to adopt a unified stance on the genocidal war, with countries like the Czech Republic and Hungary backing Israel, while Spain and Ireland voice solidarity with Palestinians.

The EU could act against Israel with foreign affairs consensus, but its absence reveals clear political motivations, according to Political Analyst & Communications Strategist Klaus Jurgens.

"This inaction exposes a contradiction: the EU fails to uphold its own human rights standards. Article 2 of the EU Treaty obligates the Union to protect human rights, Article 3 links this to the UN Charter, and Article 21 mandates universal human rights in foreign policies. Is inaction a political choice? Absolutely.”

“Could individual EU Member States act independently? Some already do—look at Ireland or Spain. The Palestine-Israel topic is a test for the EU's attitude towards human rights. Talking to the gallery one thing, action another. By doing the former, the EU, as an institution that claims to promote democracy, renders itself obsolete,” Jurgens tells TRT World.

Professor Francesco Rizzuto, a Professor of Law and former Dean of the School of Law at Liverpool Hope University, shares a similar viewpoint, stating that politics always prevails over international law in such matters.

“The EU is not a state, and its members hold divergent views on whether to fulfil their obligations under international law concerning Israel's actions in Gaza, leading to inaction and gridlock,” Rizzuto tells TRT World.

“The real culprits are certain Member States, like Germany, France, and Italy, driven by historical guilt, remain hesitant to go beyond mere criticism and avoid robust political or economic measures against Israel—despite overwhelming evidence—while employing such measures readily against Russia," he says.

Intentions beyond suspension?

Many believe that Borrell’s proposal still holds significance as it signals that continuing “business as usual” jeopardises the EU’s moral standing in the international community.

His challenge aimed to push EU leaders toward greater accountability, demanding they either publicly defend or condemn Israel’s genocide in Gaza, rather than relying on diplomatic ambiguity.

"The EU is Israel's largest trade partner, accounting for nearly 30 percent of its trade, despite Israel’s relentless and repeated violations of international law," Baroud says.

“In addition to that, aside from the US, Europe is among Israel's top arms suppliers, with Germany, Italy, Britain, and France leading the way."

“It seems that thirteen months of Israeli genocide, the one of the worst to ever be recorded in modern history, have failed to move Europe to prioritise human rights over its economic and political interests with Israel, making it complicit,” Baroud explains.

According to Article 3 of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the ongoing financial and military support for Israel by some of the EU countries constitutes “complicity in genocide” and “conspiracy to commit genocide.”

Nicaragua's recent lawsuit against Germany at the ICJ for complicity in Israel's genocide sets a precedent, showing that states enabling such acts can be held accountable under international law.

The proposal served as a challenge not only to Israel but also to EU governments, urging them to question their complicity.

Borrell’s proposal also carried symbolic weight since he was chairing his final meeting as the EU’s foreign policy chief before the end of his five-year term.