Brussels Demands, Jerusalem Declines: The EU’s Diplomatic Delusions

Brussels has a peculiar understanding of diplomacy. The European Union apparatus often prefers delivering a lecture from a pedestal of presumed moral superiority, followed by visible bewilderment when a sovereign nation refuses to politely take notes.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recently found himself subjected to this precise dynamic. Hosting European Commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Šuica in Jerusalem, he made it abundantly clear that Israel welcomes open conversation with the bloc. He firmly rejected, however, the notion of European officials dictating political positions. In his view, unilateral demands do not constitute diplomacy, particularly when they touch upon matters essential to a nation's survival.

This sharp boundary-setting follows a rather undiplomatic blunder by the bloc’s top foreign policy official, Kaja Kallas. During a private trip to Mexico last month, Kallas reportedly likened Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the South African apartheid regime.

The Israeli reaction was swift and uncompromising. Sa’ar severed all diplomatic contact with her, demanding a formal explanation. Naturally, the European machine responded not with accountability, but with evasion. Kallas issued a vague statement valuing engagement while conveniently ignoring her apartheid comparison altogether.

Šuica thus arrived in Jerusalem against a backdrop of institutional embarrassment, completing a two-day tour of Israel and the West Bank. She emphasized to her hosts that Middle Eastern partners must be able to speak candidly. Yet, the internal contradictions of the European machine were immediately on full display. An anonymous European diplomat complained to the press that Šuica failed to publicly confront Sa’ar over his boycott of Kallas. It seems the bureaucratic expectation in Brussels is that its representatives should prioritize defending their colleagues' private indiscretions over maintaining functional international relations.

Meanwhile, the European Commission continues to wield its economic weight as a political cudgel, albeit clumsily. Various European governments are heavily pressuring the executive to restrict trade with Israeli settlements. An informal July 13 deadline for proposing these trade restrictions has already sailed past, leaving the options paper stuck in the bureaucratic quagmire typical of the bloc. The machine grinds on, driven by internal pressures and member-state posturing rather than a coherent foreign strategy.

To cover for the awkward timing, the European Commission’s spokesperson service framed Šuica's regional tour as a long-planned engagement. The official line remains predictably sterile. Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert stated, "We will continue saying this respectful and constructive dialogue and engagement is important with all our partners, even more so when there are differences."

Šuica’s itinerary includes scheduled meetings with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, as well as Palestinian officials Hussein Al Sheikh and Mohammad Mustafa. Yet, the entire diplomatic episode exposes an EU foreign policy apparatus that functions more as a self-serving echo chamber than a serious geopolitical actor. They demand compliance, offer moral instruction, and when faced with sovereign pushback, retreat into procedural limbo.

Written by Thomas Nussbaumer thomas.nussbaumer@alpineweekly.com