In the final meetings of 2024 for the European Union’s foreign ministers and state leaders, Israel’s place, as expected, wasn’t overlooked.
A prominent expression of the refreshing change brought by the appointment of Estonia’s former prime minister, Kaja Kallas, as the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (replacing Josep Borrell) was the foreign ministers’ decision to hold a meeting within the framework of the Association Council between Israel and the EU. It’s worth noting that the outgoing representative, Borrell, expressed his frustration with Israel’s conduct by suggesting that the EU freeze relations with Israel. Kallas’s decision not to adopt her predecessor’s recommendation and instead maintain dialogue with Israel presents an opportunity for the foreign minister to present Israel’s positions on a series of disputed issues that were highlighted in the meetings’ summaries. Alongside the call for the return of the hostages, emphasis was placed on the need for a ceasefire in Gaza and continued humanitarian assistance, which, to say the least, does not meet the EU’s satisfaction. The ministers also reiterated their position on the need for dialogue to advance the two-state solution (following the meeting with Israel, the EU intends to hold a high-level meeting with the Palestinian Authority).
Furthermore, even if Israel was not explicitly mentioned in the context of Lebanon, it’s clear that the call for the parties to “fully and symmetrically implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701,” as well as the emphasis on UNIFIL’s stabilizing role, was directed at Israeli ears. Additionally, the leaders expressed open criticism and “deep concern” regarding the consequences of legislation “hindering UNRWA’s ability to fulfill its mandate, namely, providing aid in Gaza and the region,” while avoiding explicit mention of the West Bank.
The meetings also discussed developments in Syria, and here, as with Lebanon, Israel was not mentioned. However, it’s clear that the call to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity and sovereignty within secure borders is also directed at Israel (as well as Turkey), given its activities in the region.
In conclusion, the decision to convene the Association Council is a positive step aimed at renewing the stalled dialogue between Israel and the EU. This will allow both Israel and the EU to present their positions, with the hope that, even if it is impossible to overcome all disagreements, the evolving geostrategic reality in our region creates opportunities for cooperation.
In the final meetings of 2024 for the European Union’s foreign ministers and state leaders, Israel’s place, as expected, wasn’t overlooked.
A prominent expression of the refreshing change brought by the appointment of Estonia’s former prime minister, Kaja Kallas, as the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (replacing Josep Borrell) was the foreign ministers’ decision to hold a meeting within the framework of the Association Council between Israel and the EU. It’s worth noting that the outgoing representative, Borrell, expressed his frustration with Israel’s conduct by suggesting that the EU freeze relations with Israel. Kallas’s decision not to adopt her predecessor’s recommendation and instead maintain dialogue with Israel presents an opportunity for the foreign minister to present Israel’s positions on a series of disputed issues that were highlighted in the meetings’ summaries. Alongside the call for the return of the hostages, emphasis was placed on the need for a ceasefire in Gaza and continued humanitarian assistance, which, to say the least, does not meet the EU’s satisfaction. The ministers also reiterated their position on the need for dialogue to advance the two-state solution (following the meeting with Israel, the EU intends to hold a high-level meeting with the Palestinian Authority).
Furthermore, even if Israel was not explicitly mentioned in the context of Lebanon, it’s clear that the call for the parties to “fully and symmetrically implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701,” as well as the emphasis on UNIFIL’s stabilizing role, was directed at Israeli ears. Additionally, the leaders expressed open criticism and “deep concern” regarding the consequences of legislation “hindering UNRWA’s ability to fulfill its mandate, namely, providing aid in Gaza and the region,” while avoiding explicit mention of the West Bank.
The meetings also discussed developments in Syria, and here, as with Lebanon, Israel was not mentioned. However, it’s clear that the call to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity and sovereignty within secure borders is also directed at Israel (as well as Turkey), given its activities in the region.
In conclusion, the decision to convene the Association Council is a positive step aimed at renewing the stalled dialogue between Israel and the EU. This will allow both Israel and the EU to present their positions, with the hope that, even if it is impossible to overcome all disagreements, the evolving geostrategic reality in our region creates opportunities for cooperation.