VULNERABLE ALLIANCE

In light of the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, relations between Israel and the EU, as well as with many European countries in general, have entered a full-blown crisis. This marks a clear departure from the political and value-based principles that have guided the relationship between Israel and the European Union for decades.

It is generally accepted that, in the main, relations remain stable. The Association Agreement, which ensures free trade in goods, remains in force between the parties; Israel remains integrated into European economic and technological supply chains; and the EU retains its status as Israel's key trading partner. However, this institutional framework is increasingly at odds with the actual political reality. For the first time in many years, discussions in Brussels are focusing not on deepening cooperation, but on the limits of that cooperation.

From Gaza to Iran

The war in Gaza was a significant event in the broader geopolitical landscape. At first, Europe saw Israel's actions as a reaction to an attack and terrorist violence on an unprecedented scale. The shock effect, the hostage factor and the scale of the tragedy generated a certain amount of political and moral support.

However, as the conflict dragged on and the humanitarian consequences grew, the focus began to shift. In public opinion and among some political circles in the EU, the perception that the retaliatory actions were disproportionate gradually grew. While Israel was initially viewed as a victim of aggression, over time, European discourse has increasingly criticised it as a party whose actions go beyond what is permissible under humanitarian law.

This strategic realignment proved to be pivotal. The impact was felt not only by the public and the media, but also by the official agenda. In the discourse of European institutions, there has been a notable shift towards emphasising the importance of observing norms, restrictions and accountability. However, in Israel, this is increasingly perceived as politically motivated pressure.

The situation in Lebanon is creating further tension. The Israeli army's recent offensive operations in the south of the country have led to the creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees. European capitals are viewing this as blatant aggression. For Europe, this means not only the humanitarian risks of migrant flows spilling over into its territory, as was the case with Syrian refugees, but also the threat of destabilisation in the Eastern Mediterranean, practically within its sphere of influence. In this situation, maintaining the previous level of cooperation with Israel is becoming increasingly challenging for even the most cautious European capitals.

The possibility of war with Iran has led to a shift in the strategic relationship between the EU and Israel. The current situation involving Iran is already having an impact on Europe's economy, with prices rising, logistics being disrupted, and inflation intensifying. In such a situation, some European countries assume that it was Israel and the US who initiated the escalation with Iran, and not the other way round. It was determined that there was no pressing need to allow the situation to escalate into war. At the same time, the Iranian regime is viewed critically in Europe, but this, in their opinion, was not sufficient grounds for a military scenario. In this context, any measures aimed at maintaining economic preferences for Israel are becoming increasingly politically sensitive and economically unwarranted.

What about free trade?

This underscores the significance of the debate surrounding the prospects for a free trade agreement with Israel, which has emerged as a contentious topic in European politics. In the context of military escalation and growing regional instability, some European countries view the granting of additional trade preferences to Israel as a potential form of political support. At the same time, concerns are mounting that the deepening of economic ties could pose risks to Europe itself—through rising prices, logistical disruptions and a general deterioration in the external economic environment.

However, it is premature to suggest a complete breakdown at this stage. The ties between the parties remain too significant. Bilateral trade exceeds approximately €45–50 billion a year, making the EU Israel's largest trading partner. European investment plays a significant role in Israel's economy, particularly in technology and energy. Furthermore, the countries are cooperating on gas projects in the Eastern Mediterranean, where supply routes through the region to Europe are being discussed.

At the same time, a number of states, notably Greece and Cyprus, are opposed to drastic measures and a breakdown in relations, as Israel is an important partner for them in regional energy and military-political cooperation. The diversity of positions within the EU is hindering the body's ability to make decisive decisions.

However, the general trend is already shifting. While the relationship between Israel and the European Union was previously characterised by a gradual deepening of ties, there has been a notable shift in recent times towards a more cautious and restrained approach.

This has created a paradoxical situation. The previous framework for cooperation is still in place, but its substance is undergoing gradual change. In such circumstances, there is an increasing likelihood of a gradual deterioration in relations, without a sudden rupture, but with mounting political pressure. This includes a tightening of the terms of engagement and a de facto freeze on any initiatives to deepen it until the military-political situation in the Middle East changes.

It is noteworthy that the Quincy Institute (an American think tank) has reported that over a million EU citizens have called for the suspension of the Association Agreement with Israel. This initiative was endorsed by numerous former diplomats, several non-governmental organisations, and a UN Special Rapporteur, who emphasised the urgent need to utilise all available resources to avert a potential humanitarian crisis. Spain, Slovenia and Ireland called for its suspension, but the decision was blocked by Germany and Italy.

In light of these developments, accusations of double standards are becoming increasingly prevalent. The countries that swiftly imposed sweeping sanctions against Russia are, in the case of Israel, showing caution and a tendency to delay decisions. While sanctions against Moscow were presented as a defence of a 'rules-based order', in the Israeli case procedural and political constraints are becoming increasingly evident.

If not Europe, then Latin America

In Israel, it appears that they have no intention of waiting for European attitudes to change. In the face of mounting tensions between Israel and Brussels, Tel Aviv—seeking to diversify its foreign policy ties—has taken a substantial step towards strengthening its relationship with Argentina.

The visit of Argentina's President Javier Milei to Israel on 19–20 April was a significant event. It was aimed at strengthening the special nature of Argentine-Israeli relations and was also seen as a breakthrough for Israel in the Latin American sphere.

The visit is of particular significance given that, following talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the launch of the so-called 'Isaac Agreements' was announced; these are defined as a new strategic framework for cooperation between Argentina, Israel and other 'like-minded' states in the Western Hemisphere. Both parties have stated that the initiative is inspired by the logic of the 'Abraham Accords', and that the idea itself was proposed by the Argentine leader Milei, who has always been open about his sympathies for Israel.

The 'Isaac Agreements' themselves, which form the basis of modern relations between the two countries, constitute a framework for political and diplomatic cooperation. The concept revolves around establishing a network of Latin American and Western Hemisphere states that are eager to enhance their collaboration with Israel on matters pertaining to security, innovation, trade, diplomatic support and the fight against anti-Semitism. Israel positions its relations with Argentina as a model for such cooperation with other Latin American countries. In essence, this represents an endeavour to establish not merely a network of friendly countries, but rather a politically structured and ideologically 'charged' ecosystem, with Argentina serving as a cornerstone for Israel.

At the same time, the question of whether the 'Isaac Agreements' can become an analogue of the 'Abraham Accords' requires careful assessment. There is a clear similarity between the two.  However, it should be noted that these two formats are inherently distinct. The Abraham Accords represent a mechanism for the official normalisation of relations between Israel and a number of Arab states with whom it had either no full-fledged ties or only limited contacts. The situation in Latin America is different, however. Most states in the region have long recognised Israel and maintain diplomatic relations with it. Therefore, the 'Isaac Agreements' do not address the task of initial normalisation. Their function is different: to politically realign existing relations, making them more demonstrative, more ideologically aligned, and more focused on joint action against common threats. Security and foreign policy are the top priorities.  Consequently, it is more accurate to speak not of a complete analogue of the 'Abraham Accords', but of their Latin American adaptation.

In a number of Latin American countries, attitudes towards Israel’s policies remain reserved or critical. Moreover, the negative or reserved attitude of some European countries towards Israel’s policies may also act as a factor limiting the expansion of the ‘Isaac Agreements’ in Latin America. For many countries in the region, the European Union remains a key partner, which is why they avoid drastic foreign policy moves that could complicate relations with Europe. A further influence is the humanitarian and religious agenda, reinforced by the Vatican’s stance.