It seems that the intention of the Government of Spain to close the EU's trade agreements with Israel will not go any further, at least for now, since this Tuesday the Executive of Pedro Sánchez, through its Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares, has not been able to obtain the necessary unanimity from the Twenty-Seven to break commercially with the Jewish State.
Thus it was related yesterday by our correspondent in Brussels, Alvaro Villarroel, highlighting that the initiative promoted by Albares to suspend the association agreement between the European Union and Israel crashes against the lack of consensus among the main member states, which reject activating the break clause despite the increase in tension in the Middle East and Madrid's appeals for the defense of human rights.
Capitals like Berlin and Rome -points out our correspondent- rule out that the conditions are met for the European Union to make use of Article Two of the treaty that governs the relationship between the community bloc and the country of Benjamin Netanyahu.
A clause that was negotiated during the time of the Spanish commissioner, Manuel Marín, and to which the Spanish Government was resorting, now alleging, in this case, the escalation of tension in the Middle East. On the other hand, states like Belgium did show yesterday their predisposition to study the freezing of the commercial part of the bilateral relationship.
"What else has to happen for the EU to be moved?
On a national level, but also within the diplomatic framework, this Tuesday, the Israeli ambassador to Spain, Dana Erlich, spoke exclusively to Demócrata, regarding the positioning of Sánchez's Executive. Specifically, she did so about the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, José Manuel Albares, upon arriving at European institutions, where he defended that Israel must be asked to change its path. “It cannot be the only way Israel has to relate to its neighbors.” “What else has to happen - he asked rhetorically - for the EU to be moved by the systematic violations of international law and human rights that Israel carries out?”.
At this point, for Erlich, these manifestations from the Government of Spain are those of someone who has decided to “adopt an extreme position, also presenting a biased and partial perspective of events and reality, which, furthermore, distances it from the positions of the majority of its European partners”.
It should be recalled that the Spanish Executive, as the head of the Foreign Ministry has been emphasizing in recent days, has been persistent in its positions, even formally proposing this measure of rupture with Israel in response to the escalation of tension in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon.
Placing the debate on a plane not only political, but also moral, Albares has appealed to the coherence of the European Union in matters of human rights and foreign policy and has been especially stubborn in defending that “Europe is playing with its credibility”.
"A distorted interpretation of reality"
Erlich insists that the statements by the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs were an absolute surprise, for reasons including - points out the head of Israeli diplomacy to this newspaper - because the minister “has omitted fundamental elements in his message to understand the situation”.
For example -details the ambassador-, the responsibility of Hezbollah in the situation in Lebanon, as the Lebanese Government itself has pointed out; the background of dialogue and peace talks between Lebanon and Israel; as well as the clear responsibility of Hamas, which continues to reject disarmament processes.
Furthermore -adds the ambassador-, one must not forget "Israel's relations with Arab countries in the region, including the Abraham Accords, as well as the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and the role and threat that the Iranian regime poses to the region, as recognized by various Arab countries".
Thus —concludes Dana Erlich to Demócrata—, “without taking these elements into account, the Spanish Government's position cannot be considered a legitimate criticism, but rather an incomplete and distorted interpretation of reality”.