The Minister of Foreign Affairs, José Manuel Albares, maintains the pulse with the rest of the European countries, such as Germany or Italy, which this Tuesday intend to lower the expectations of the Spanish Government to achieve the suspension of the association agreement with Israel. This is a decision that requires the unanimity of the Twenty-seven and which does not seem to have, at the moment, the necessary support to prosper, according to diplomatic sources and negotiating teams in Brussels.
Upon his arrival at the meeting of the heads of the bloc's foreign affairs, where Spain will formally propose this measure in response to the escalation of tension in the Middle East —especially in Lebanon—, the minister has increased pressure on his partners by stating that “Europe is playing for its credibility”. With this declaration, Albares wanted to place the debate on a level that is not only political but also moral, appealing to the European Union's consistency in human rights and foreign policy.
Despite the complexity involved in moving forward with a measure of such magnitude, Spain does not desist in its strategy. As Albares himself explained, the situation has worsened significantly since September, when, in the context of the war in Gaza, the Spanish government already put forward this initiative to the European Commission. At that time, the proposal did not succeed, but the Executive considers that the current deterioration of the international scenario justifies reopening the debate with greater urgency.
Spain tightens, Brussels contains
"The situation is more serious than in September", the minister has underlined. "Now we observe how the tension in Gaza is maintained, the pressure in the West Bank continues, and the seriousness of the situation in Lebanon has increased". In this regard, Albares plans to directly question his European counterparts with a forceful question: "What else has to happen for the European Union to react to the systematic human rights violations that, in our opinion, are occurring?".
From the Moncloa Palace, they consider that the time has come to send a firm signal to the international community. The Spanish Government maintains that it is not coherent to maintain relations with Israel intact if a significant change in its actions in the conflict territories does not occur. This stance is part of a broader foreign policy strategy that seeks to reinforce Spain's role as a relevant actor in the European sphere and a defender of international law.
The Executive insists, furthermore, that it is not alone in this initiative. Ireland and Slovenia have backed the Spanish proposal, joining the letter that Albares sent to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, in which the request to suspend the association agreement with Israel was formalized. However, Kallas herself has acknowledged that, for now, there is no necessary consensus for the measure to move forward.
Kallas's Plan "A"
Faced with this scenario, the European diplomacy team is considering more politically viable alternatives. One of them involves exploring trade measures, which do not require unanimity and could be approved by a qualified majority. This option would allow progress on a joint response without needing to reach a total agreement among the Member States.
In fact, the European Commission already took a step in this direction last September, when it approved the partial suspension of certain commercial aspects of the agreement with Israel. This decision came after pressure from several countries and the commitment made by the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, during her State of the Union address. However, the measure was not fully implemented due to the diplomatic context of the time, marked by attempts at de-escalation in the region.
Now, that option is back on the table. The reactivation of selective trade sanctions could become an intermediate path capable of reconciling positions within the community bloc. Among the measures being studied are the suspension of tariff preferences, the restriction of certain imports, or the tightening of trade conditions applicable to Israeli products.
These proposals present several advantages over the total suspension of the association agreement. Firstly, their approval would be more feasible, as it would not require unanimity. Secondly, they could count on the support of countries that consider a complete rupture of relations disproportionate, but that are willing to support more limited actions.
New allies
In this regard, the Belgian Foreign Minister, Maxime Prévot, has pointed out that his country would look favorably upon such a solution. “We are aware that a total suspension is probably out of reach given the divergent positions of the Member States”, he stated, thus showing the willingness of some governments to move forward with less ambitious, but politically viable measures.
The closest precedent dates back to last year, when the European Union decided to freeze certain tariff preferences granted to Israel. These included key aspects such as the free movement of goods, intellectual property protection, or access to public contracts. Although it was a limited measure, it marked a turning point in bilateral relations.
Currently, the feeling in Brussels is that “measures are already on the table”, but political will is lacking to take the next step. The key will be to find a balance that allows these actions to be justified as technical or commercial decisions, preventing them from being perceived as direct political sanctions. This nuance is fundamental to gaining the support of countries closest to Israel.
For his part, Albares has insisted that the European Union finds itself at a decisive moment, a limbo in which it must "decide if we are coherent in all scenarios and with all actors”, he declared. For the minister, the fundamental issue is whether Europe is willing to reject the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy, regardless of who exercises it. The head of Spanish diplomacy has gone further by describing the current situation as “the biggest global crisis of this century” and the most serious in the region since the Gulf War. These words reflect the Government's concern about an escalation that threatens to further destabilize the Middle East and have global repercussions.
United States will mediate again
In parallel to the European debates, the United States continues to try to mediate in the conflict. This Thursday, Washington will host a new round of contacts between delegations from Lebanon and Israel, in an attempt to consolidate the fragile de-escalation process initiated recently. The meeting will take place at the headquarters of the Department of State and will follow up on the first direct meeting between both parties in decades.
From that first contact, a temporary ten-day truce emerged that, however, has not managed to put an end to the violence on the ground. Even so, the US administration has positively valued the “constructive” nature of the dialogue and has reiterated its intention to keep this diplomatic channel open.
The United States insists on the need to move towards sustained “good faith” negotiations, in a context that is especially delicate due to the growing tension between the Israeli Army and the Shiite group Hezbollah. The latter has intensified its actions on the border with Lebanon, provoking an increasingly forceful military response from Israel.
Despite these diplomatic efforts, the situation remains extremely volatile. Lebanese authorities have denounced new attacks on their territory, which calls into question the effectiveness of the agreed-upon ceasefire. For their part, both Beirut and the Israeli government have opted to maintain public silence on the upcoming meeting, reflecting the caution surrounding this process.
The current escalation dates back to March 2, when Israel intensified its offensive on Lebanon in response to actions attributed to Hezbollah. Since then, the human toll has not stopped increasing, with nearly 2,400 dead and more than 7,600 injured, according to the latest available data. These figures highlight the magnitude of a crisis that is not only military but also humanitarian.