JOSEP BORRELL : LE CONFLIT ISRAÉLO-PALESTINIEN MENACE L'EUROPE

Nous reprenons ici des extraits d’un article de la revue Foreign Affairs du 27 Juin 2025 (1) co-écrit par Josep Borrell ancien haut Représentant de l’UE jusqu’en 2024. On sait que Josep Borrell avait  - en vain -  pris des positions très fermes et fait des propositions au Conseil au sujet des violations du droit international (notamment humanitaire) par le gouvernement israélien à Gaza et en Cisjordanie (2).

Dans cet article, il explique que le conflit Israélo-palestinien menace la sécurité européenne et la crédibilité du droit international - que l’Union est paralysée par ses divisions internes alors qu’elle dispose de toute une panoplie de moyens pour peser sur la politique israélienne - que ces moyens pourraient être mis en oeuvre par un groupe d’États membres.

(À noter que cet article ne fait pas référence aux offensives israélienne et américaine des 13 et 26 Juin 2025)

Europe Must Get Off the Sidelines in the Middle East

«  Europe’s own security is at stake, but more important, European history imposes a duty on Europeans to intervene in response to Israel’s violations of international law. 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stirs emotions and fuels polarization in European countries, given the shared historical baggage. And increasingly, it is undermining the foundations of the international order that Europeans cherish and rely on.

It has called repeatedly for a cease-fire and for respect for international law. One of us, Borrell, has issued numerous statements condemning both Hamas’s murderous attacks and Israel’s entirely disproportionate responses.

But internal divisions among member states undermined the EU’s efficacy.

As a result, the EU, as a bloc, has been largely relegated to the sidelines, divided internally and overshadowed in cease-fire diplomacy by the United States

The EU will need to use the full panoply of legal, financial, trade, political, and regulatory tools at its disposal to affect existing levers and pressure points.

Nor can the EU call on other states to honor the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and announce that it will not enforce the same body’s warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The EU-Israel Association Agreement—the central legal framework that has governed relations between the EU and Israel since 2000—could be reexamined. Its Article 2 provides a legal basis to reconsider the agreement’s terms in response to human rights violations. A recent investigation by the EU’s own human rights envoy clearly established these violations. Seventeen member states have now joined Ireland and Spain in calling for a reassessment of the agreement.

First, and at a minimum, the EU could take preliminary steps such as initiating a formal review of the agreement, suspending summits and high-level political contacts between European and Israeli leaders, or suspending Israel’s participation in some EU programs such as Erasmus+

The EU can send a strong message to Israel’s government and citizens by suspending the agreement’s trade provisions, which in practice would mean pausing Israel’s preferential tariffs

Although unanimous support from EU member states is required to suspend the entire agreement, most experts in the European Commission’s Legal Service assert that only a qualified majority vote—in which policies can be adopted by 55 percent of states representing at least 65 percent of the EU’s total population—is needed to suspend its trade provisions

Nothing should stop the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, from supporting such a move at the next EU Foreign Affairs Council in July.

The EU must make it much clearer that it will not tolerate efforts to intimidate international courts. Recent threats and sanctions against ICC officials by Israel and the United States constitute a direct challenge to the multilateral legal order the EU claims to champion.

The EU should consider targeted sanctions—such as travel bans and asset freezes—against individuals and entities, whether governmental or nongovernmental, that seek to obstruct or delegitimize international justice mechanisms

Alternatively, to bypass the reluctance of some member states, a smaller group could establish a so-called CFSP+, or an addition to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The existing provisions on enhanced cooperation in Article 20 of the EU’s Treaty allow for at least nine member states to come together to utilize certain foreign policy tools not related to defense. Because such an action has never been taken before, those states would have to explore what a CFSP+ would concretely allow them to do

This is the moment to overcome the crippling effect of 27 veto powers—for the sake of European policy as well as for the Middle East.

If a majority of member states can coalesce more effectively around a vision, the rest might follow. » (3)

Jean-Guy Giraud

29 - 06 - 2025 

_____________________________________ 

(1) https://www.foreignaffairs.com/europe/europe-must-get-sidelines-middle-east?s=EDZZZ005ZX&utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=fatoday&utm_campaign=Might%20Unmakes%20Right&utm_content=20250627&utm_term=EDZZZ005ZX

(2)  voir : https://www.lesamisdutraitedelisbonne.com/post/gaza-l-engagement-solitaire-de-m-josep-borrell et https://www.lesamisdutraitedelisbonne.com/post/le-conflit-palestinien-risque-d-entrainer-le-monde-dans-l-abîme-josep-borrell

(3)  effectivement, certaines mesures (notamment commerciales) prônées par M. Borrell pourraient être activées par une majorité qualifiée d’États membres comme le propose la Commission à l’égard de la Russie