Israel’s foreign minister has criticised the European Commission’s plan to propose punitive measures against Israel in response to the war in Gaza, describing the move as disproportionate and unprecedented.
In a letter sent on Tuesday, 16 September, to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar urged Brussels to drop proposals that would curtail trade ties and freeze EU payments, arguing that “pressure through sanctions will not work”. He warned the approach would “empower Hamas” and said Israel would not be deterred while its security was at risk. Sa’ar also said Israel was forced into the Gaza war by the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023.
The Commission is due to table the measures on Wednesday, 17 September, for consideration by the College of Commissioners. The package is expected to include a partial suspension of trade preferences under the EU–Israel Association Agreement—effectively reimposing customs duties on a share of imports from Israel—alongside targeted listings of extremist Israeli ministers and violent West Bank settlers, and a halt to most EU bilateral payments to Israeli state bodies while maintaining cooperation with civil society and Yad Vashem.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the intent is to suspend trade-related provisions within the Association Agreement and that reimposing duties would have a measurable impact, noting that EU–Israel trade totalled about €42.6bn in 2024, with roughly 37% benefitting from preferential tariffs. She has called on member states to back the plan.
Procedurally, any restrictive measures against individuals (travel bans and asset freezes) would require unanimous approval by EU governments in the Council under the Common Foreign and Security Policy. By contrast, the legal route for suspending parts of an association agreement is contested: some legal analysis argues the Council can act by qualified majority for such trade steps, while others point to the political expectation of consensus. The Commission and Kallas have framed the trade proposal as subject to qualified majority voting, a point that has drawn close scrutiny in national capitals.
The political outlook remains uncertain. Several member states have resisted EU-level action on Israel during the Gaza war, while others have pressed for a stronger response. Kallas has said at least one large member state—Germany or Italy—would have to support the trade step for it to advance. The Commission’s move follows von der Leyen’s State of the Union address on 10 September, in which she announced plans to seek sanctions on extremist ministers and a partial suspension of the trade relationship with Israel, reflecting a hardening stance in parts of the EU against Israel’s conduct of the war.
Jerusalem’s reaction was swift. Sa’ar’s letter argued the Commission was acting on flawed information and that the measures, if adopted, would set a precedent not applied to other countries. He said Israel had not been consulted in advance and that such steps would hinder efforts to end the conflict. Israeli officials also say the war aims remain the dismantling of Hamas and the release of hostages.
The Commission’s expected proposals would not automatically take effect. After Wednesday’s College meeting, measures involving sanctions listings would go to the Council for unanimous adoption. Any decision to suspend tariff preferences under the Association Agreement would require a separate Council act; advocates of the plan argue this can proceed by qualified majority, but governments opposed to the move could seek to block it politically even if unanimity is not strictly required in law.
Beyond the institutional process, the implications for EU–Israel trade are significant given the size of bilateral commerce and the share currently entering the EU at reduced duty rates. Reimposing tariffs would increase costs on affected Israeli exports to the EU market. The Commission’s plan to stop most EU payments to Israeli state entities—while keeping funding for civil society and commemorative institutions—would also mark a notable shift in day-to-day engagement.
The debate inside the EU mirrors wider divides over how to respond to the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the conduct of hostilities. Kallas has argued that a tougher EU line is needed to change Israeli policy, while critics of sanctions question their effectiveness and warn of diplomatic fallout. For Israel, any EU move to curtail trade or impose listings would add to international pressure as its military operations continue. The outcome will depend on whether the Commission can secure sufficient backing among the 27 governments for the trade component and unanimity for listings, and on whether capitals that are sceptical choose to resist or to seek alternative measures.
