A ‘review’ of Article 2 of the EU’s Association Agreement with Israel? Meddling with the EU’s own legal obligations

On 20 May 2025, at a Foreign Affairs council meeting, High Representative Kaja Kallas declared that a strong majority of EU member states are in “favour of (the) review of Article 2 of (the EU’s) Association Agreement with Israel” as the latter’s war continues to devastate the occupied Gaza Strip.  

Although this may appear as a sudden paradigm shift (at least) in the language of European officials, it is important to emphasize that the EU has – legally speaking – been obliged to carry out such a review (at least) since the year 2000 with the coming into force of its Association Agreement (AA) with Israel. Under this pact, the EU and Israel agreed that their relationship “shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy”. Thus, Article 2 sets out a strict conditionality approach in order to ensure the effective implementation of those commitments.

However, although Israel’s 58-year illegal occupation of Palestinian Territory has been evidenced (by a number of highly respectable human rights organisations) as apartheid, the EU have never lifted a finger to review this AA. So even before 7 October 2023, Israel’s apartheid regime has been violating Palestinians’ human rights – protected by international law, including children, women and others. Apartheid has in effect been contributing to violations of Palestinians’ rights to life, self-determination, due process, freedom from torture and cruel or degrading treatment, human dignity, freedom of movement, development, and freedom of association and expression.

OPINION: Global Backlash: How the World Could Shift Israel’s Gaza Strategy

Moreover, Amnesty International (AI), as well as other international organisations/UN experts and genocide scholars have all concluded that Israel’s actions since October 7, 2023 amount to genocide. More specifically, AI has found that Israel is committing three out of 5 genocidal acts namely: Killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to individuals from that group and deliberately bringing about conditions of life that aim to physically destroy a group in whole or in part. AI has also specifically condemned Israel for using starvation as a method of war.

For the EU to come out now – in the face of an ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing livestreamed for the world to witness – is an insult not only to its own obligations under Article 2 of this same agreement but to the very core values upon which the whole institutional edifice is founded. A ‘review’ is built into the very DNA of such an agreement – as it is in all the EU’s AAs – but the EU has never seriously followed up on its obligations with meaningful actions.

A brief historical background to the concept of ‘association’

Article 217 TFEU stipulates that third countries may be ‘associated’ to the EU through the conclusion of association agreements. More specifically Article 217(ex Article 310 TEC) stipulates that 

The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.

But what is the meaning of such an ‘association’?

In the history of the EU itself, association agreements have evolved over time in line with the evolution of (internal) EU integration itself. These AAs are broad and comprehensive agreements that typically contain three main components: political dialogue, trade liberalisation and sectoral cooperation. These agreements introduce a certain level of differentiation in EU relations with third countries. Importantly, they establish a long-term legal and institutional framework for such cooperation.

READ: ICC prosecutor prepares arrest warrants for Smotrich and Ben Gvir

When it comes to EU association agreements with southern neighbouring countries, association usually refers to an alternative to membership and / or a privileged / advanced status for non-European countries. There is a third type of association and this refers to a pre-accession status. Morocco, on the one hand, attempted to join the then European Communities (the precursor to the EU) in 1987 but its application was rejected on the grounds that it was not considered to be a European country. Israel, on the other hand, is a member of a number of European frameworks including European sporting events and the Eurovision Song Contest – even though it is not geographically speaking located in Europe. Within the frameworks of the EU’s association agreements, southern neighbouring countries like Morocco and Israel can be part of decision-shaping but not decision-making.

This means that there is an inherent flexibility of ‘association’ ranging from a comprehensive framework agreement with countries like Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova (which can eventually become full members of the EU because they are recognized as European) to a focused agreement on market integration as with Switzerland through the EEA agreement, to an advanced status requested by Morocco within the European Neightbourhood Policy. In other words, the actual format of these AAs is not pre-defined.

However, under Article 218 (10) TFEU, the European Parliament has significant opportunities to influence the content of these agreements. The EP also plays a crucial role in monitoring of the implementation and potential suspension of agreements. But the problem has always been that the EU has never clearly identified what exactly the criteria for a human rights assessment with third parties entails. In reality, this has allowed all EU member states and institutions to pay lip service to flagrant human rights violations in third partner countries – including in occupied Palestinian territory. All this, while the EU still purports to be supporting democracy, human rights and ‘shared values’ with these same partners.

Yesterday’s announced review of the EU-Israel AA is thus a performative act void of any substance. There is no concrete consequence for Israel: Israeli officials declared as such when they announced that no such external pressure will divert Israel from its continued destruction of life in the Gaza Strip. 

What saving lives in Gaza requires is a strong resolve and will to act: Namely, stopping all European arms sales to Israel, as well as intelligence collaboration and trade. Equally important for all EU member states is action in support of the International Court’s rulings and the EU’s exclusion of any Israeli entities (complicit in the country’s military-industrial-security complex) from EU funding – including universities. By doing so, the EU would finally be true to its own obligations and legal commitments, which have been ignored for decades.

OPINION: Israel has no right to exist – show me the law that says it does!

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.