Israel-Hamas conflict shines spotlight on Europe’s persistent failure to act in unison

LONDON – With the European Union divided over the course it should adopt in the Middle East, its heads of state and governments meeting in Brussels for their regular summit are devoting a substantial amount of time to coordinating their approach to the crisis.

The EU remains Israel’s most prominent trade market, and the bloc’s security is directly impacted by the confrontation between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Tension is running high not only between the EU’s 27 member states but also among EU’s civil servants.

In an unprecedented step, over 850 EU officials accused Dr Ursula von der Leyen, the president of EU’s executive body, the European Commission, of unilaterally taking Israel’s side in the conflict, thereby contributing to what they termed as a “European cacophony”, a loud mixture of diplomatic noise, with no coherent message.

Although EU leaders are now pulling together, it is unlikely that the union will speak with one voice in the Gaza-Israel conflict.

The EU suffers from two critical problems: long-running personal rivalries between politicians and an equally entrenched difference between member states over the approach to Israel and the Arab world.

The bloc has two bodies: the European Council, which represents the heads of state and governments of the 27 members, and the European Commission, which runs all daily operations and employs around 32,000 civil servants.

Theoretically, EU foreign policy is decided in the Council by presidents and prime ministers. Mr Charles Michel, a former prime minister of Belgium, now leads that body.

But the Commission pays, appoints and controls the EU’s diplomats and embassies.

The union’s foreign policy chief – a position currently occupied by Mr Josep Borrell, a former Spanish foreign minister – sits within the Commission.

The tussle between Mr Michel and Dr von der Leyen is so intractable that both attend, for instance, various multilateral bodies in which the EU is represented.

Although awkward, the arrangement sometimes works well: in the case of Ukraine, for instance, the Council and Commission acted in unison.

This is, however, not the case for the current Middle East crisis.

Days after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Dr von der Leyen took it upon herself to fly to Israel to express support without consulting the Council or the EU foreign policy chief.

On Oct 13, on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, Dr von der Leyen claimed she went there “to express solidarity with the Israeli people after the terrible terrorist attack by Hamas”. She ignored the stance of the EU, which condemned the Hamas attack but appealed to Israel to respect international law in its military operations in Gaza.

Dr von der Leyen attracted further controversy when, during a policy speech in Washington last week, she prioritised Israel’s right to defend itself after Hamas’ assault. But, she neglected to mention the core EU position that Israel must allow Palestinians to have their state.

The backlash came quickly.

Dispensing with diplomatic niceties, Mr Michel, the European Council president, bluntly reminded Dr von der Leyen that the Council, not her Commission, defines the EU’s foreign policy.

And Mr Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, even issued a rare public rebuke of his boss.

The official position of the EU on any foreign policy is discussed by the foreign ministers of the 27 EU member states “in meetings chaired by me”, he pointedly told journalists.

But the EU’s disarray goes much deeper.

Germany – Dr von der Leyen’s home country – and the central and eastern European member states tend to side with Israel.

In contrast, other European countries, such as Spain, Italy, France and Ireland, tend to be more critical of the Israelis.

The result is that EU officials from these countries often mirror their nations’ perspectives.

Soon after Hamas struck Israel, for instance, Mr Oliver Varhelyi – who comes from Hungary, a stalwart Israeli supporter and is the commissioner responsible for relations with the EU’s immediate neighbours – announced that the EU had suspended all aid to Palestinians.

Hours later, Mr Varhelyi’s announcement was overturned by the European Commission, which decided to double its aid to Palestine.

The two-day EU summit that ends on Friday can only examine deep policy and personnel differences.

But the backlash against Dr von der Leyen’s unilateral initiatives in the Middle East has wider international ramifications, for it mirrors opposition to her equally ill-prepared initiatives on Europe’s crucial relationship with China.

Dr von der Leyen already raised eyebrows in March when she gave a particularly critical speech on China’s trade practices in Europe, a move appreciated in Washington but much less so in Berlin, Paris or Rome.

She annoyed EU member states even further in September when she announced the opening of an investigation into China’s alleged subsidies of electric vehicles.

Now, all of Europe’s dirty diplomatic linen is being washed in public.

Mr Borrell used no other place but a press conference he held in Beijing last week to rebuke Dr von der Leyen for exceeding her powers in the Middle East.

No doubt, his Chinese hosts took note of Europe’s persistent failure to talk with one voice.