In Europe, voices are calling to cancel the Association Agreement with Israel due to the conflict in Gaza. But effective diplomacy requires measured responses rather than immediate reactions. Among allies, decisions should be based on long-term mutual interests. Indeed, history shows that Europe rarely cancels strategic agreements—even in far more serious cases—and Turkey is the prime example.
Those calling for a reassessment of EU-Israel relations on moral grounds would do well to look eastward, to Europe's long-standing agreement with Turkey—the Ankara Agreement, signed in 1963 and expanded into a customs union in 1995. This agreement remains intact despite Turkey's ongoing, five-decade-long occupation of northern Cyprus—territory belonging to an EU member state and widely regarded as contrary to international law. Moreover, even as Ankara openly threatens the territorial integrity of Greece—another EU member—Europe maintains close, uninterrupted ties with Turkey.
European policy sometimes appears inconsistent regarding strategic interests. True political influence isn't achieved through canceling agreements or issuing threats; it is built through dialogue, cooperation, and strategic patience. If Europe can exhibit strategic patience with Turkey, surely Israel—a stable democratic partner sharing deep interests and common values with Europe—deserves the same consideration.
The EU-Israel Association Agreement is more than just a trade deal. It constitutes a solid foundation for technological, scientific, economic, and diplomatic collaboration. Since coming into effect in 2000, the agreement has made Europe Israel's largest trading partner, with annual trade surpassing €40 billion. Moreover, it has granted Europe unprecedented access to Israeli innovation hubs, which have become major engines of growth for European industries. It also includes unique elements such as joint research initiatives, technological integration, and coordinated strategies on regional political and security issues.
While Israel isn't formally a candidate for EU membership due to geography, its association agreement closely resembles those of ambitious states like Ukraine and Georgia—countries already on the path to EU membership.
Herein lies a strategic opportunity: Europe has repeatedly demonstrated that influencing friendly states is more effectively achieved through incentives rather than threats. Instead of threatening disengagement, Europe should consider deepening the partnership and creating new opportunities, even exploring a future path toward Israel's integration into the EU framework. Especially during crises, the EU can introduce new mechanisms that foster constructive dialogue and cooperation, establishing a tangible horizon for future integration discussions.
Canceling the agreement would harm both sides significantly. Not only Israel would suffer, but major European corporations that have invested billions in Israeli technology, medicine, and advanced industries would also bear the cost. Highly valued joint scientific initiatives would be severely disrupted, limiting Europe's access to innovation labs that have significantly strengthened its own technological prowess. Europe would also lose critical leverage and diplomatic influence to positively shape Israeli policies, including those related to peace and security.
The Association Agreement was founded on the understanding that shared strategic interests outweigh momentary disagreements. When it was signed in 1995, Europe recognized that genuine influence is achieved through partnership and incentives, not threats or isolation. As demonstrated clearly in the Turkish case, Europe knows that staying engaged—not disconnecting—is key to maintaining influence.
Now is the time for Israel and Europe alike to commit to responsible leadership. Israel must maintain clear, substantive dialogue with Europe, and it is crucial for Europe to recognize that lasting influence is best maintained through partnership rather than confrontation.
Shay Gal is an expert in international politics, crisis management, and strategic communication, focusing on geopolitical strategy and public diplomacy.
