Tensions between the United States and the European Union are increasingly visible as divisions grow over Israel’s actions in the Middle East, particularly in the context of the expanding conflict involving Iran. What was once a broadly aligned Western position is now beginning to sprain and splinter, with Europe increasingly willing to challenge Israel diplomatically and reconsider its long-standing ties.
Recent political shifts inside Europe have accelerated this trend. The electoral defeat of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has removed one of Israel’s most reliable defenders within the EU. For years, Budapest played a key role in blocking or weakening European initiatives critical of Israeli policy, especially those requiring unanimous approval. With a new Hungarian government expected to take a more mainstream European stance, the path is clearer for measures that had previously stalled.
At the same time, Italy has signalled a change in tone, with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, once seen as a strong Israeli ally, stepping back by suspending a defence cooperation framework. While largely symbolic, the move reflects a broader shift in European politics, where support for Israel is becoming harder to sustain in the face of public pressure and regional instability.
These developments come as several EU countries push for stronger action. Spain has taken one of the most assertive positions, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announcing plans to ask the European Union to suspend its association agreement with Israel. Madrid argues that Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon violate international law and are incompatible with the values underpinning the agreement, which includes a human rights clause.
Spain is not alone. Ireland and Slovenia have joined calls to review the EU-Israel relationship, urging discussion at the level of foreign ministers. Together, these countries represent a growing bloc within Europe that believes the EU can no longer remain passive. While consensus among all 27 member states remains difficult, momentum is building for at least limited measures, such as sanctions targeting extremist settlers in the West Bank.
Such sanctions would likely be narrow in scope and symbolic rather than effective. However, their political significance could be far greater. If adopted, they would mark one of the first times the EU has taken coordinated punitive action against Israeli actors. More importantly, they could open the door to broader steps, including the partial suspension of trade or cooperation agreements.
The economic dimension is critical. The EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner and a major source of investment, tourism, and research funding. Despite this, Europe has historically struggled to translate its economic weight into political influence. That may now be changing as policymakers debate how to use economic leverage more effectively.
This shift is closely tied to a wider regional context, especially tensions involving Iran. The United States has continued to support Israel’s security strategy, including confrontational policies towards Tehran. European governments, by contrast, have taken a more cautious stance, favouring diplomacy and de-escalation.
This divergence reflects deeper strategic differences. Washington views Iran primarily as a security threat requiring firm containment, while many European capitals remain concerned about the risks of escalation and the collapse of diplomatic channels. The breakdown of previous nuclear agreements has only deepened those concerns.
Complicating matters further is the political style of the current US administration. President Donald Trump’s close alignment with Israel, combined with his often confrontational stance on European allies, has widened the gap. His criticism of European policies and institutions has made it more difficult for EU leaders to align themselves fully with Washington.
Domestic politics across Europe are also playing a major role in the matter. Public opinion has shifted significantly, with growing criticism of Israel’s military actions and their humanitarian consequences in Gaza. Large protests have taken place in several countries, and media coverage has intensified scrutiny of government positions.
In Italy, this pressure has been particularly visible. Support for the Palestinian cause goes beyond traditional political divisions, making it harder for leaders to separate foreign policy from domestic concerns. The same pattern can be observed in Germany, where public opinion has become more critical even as the government maintains its longstanding commitment to Israeli security.
Germany’s position remains complex. Its historical responsibility stemming from the Holocaust continues to shape its foreign policy, limiting how far it is willing to go in criticising Israel. At the same time, there are signs of a gradual shift, with more open discussion of settlement expansion and civilian casualties. Berlin is unlikely to lead any major EU initiative against Israel, but it may become more receptive to collective European action.
A key argument driving calls for stronger EU measures is the issue of consistency. Critics point out that the EU imposed extensive sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, yet has been far more restrained in its response to Israel. This perceived double standard, they argue, undermines the EU’s credibility as a defender of international law.
Such concerns have gained traction among both policy-makers and the public. A petition calling for the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement has attracted widespread support, while former European officials have urged more decisive action. Although such proposals still face significant political obstacles, they are increasingly part of mainstream debates.
From Israel’s perspective, these developments may not yet be fully appreciated. The country’s strategic focus remains on security threats, particularly Iran and its regional allies. The United States continues to provide crucial military and diplomatic backing, reinforcing the perception that European criticism can be managed.
However, this may prove to be a miscalculation. Europe’s importance to Israel goes beyond politics, encompassing trade, research and cultural exchange. A deterioration in relations could have tangible economic consequences, especially if it affects access to European markets or funding programmes.
Israel has traditionally relied on strong bilateral relationships within the EU to prevent unfavourable collective decisions. This approach, sometimes described as dividing and blocking, has been effective in the past. But as political dynamics shift and key allies lose influence or change course, it may become less reliable. The broader picture suggests a gradual realignment. The EU is not breaking with Israel or the United States, but it is moving towards a more independent and assertive position. This reflects both internal changes and external pressures, including the evolving situation in the Middle East.
For the United States, this trend presents a challenge. Maintaining a unified Western approach has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, and the growing divergence with Europe over Israel and Iran risks weakening that unity, particularly at a time of broader geopolitical competition.
For Europe, the challenge lies in balancing values, interests and alliances. Acting more decisively could strengthen the EU’s credibility, but it also carries the risk of potential economic and diplomatic fallout. Navigating this path will require careful coordination among member states and a clear sense of strategic priorities.
Recent setbacks for Israel in Europe may signal more than a temporary shift, pointing to a deeper transformation in how the EU approaches the Middle East and its role on the global stage. As tensions involving Iran continue to shape the regional landscape, the gap between European and American policies is likely to persist.
Whether this leads to lasting division or a new form of transatlantic cooperation remains uncertain. What is clear is that the relationship is becoming more complex, with fewer assumptions of automatic alignment and greater emphasis on independent decision-making.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 23 April, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.
Short link: