When Article 2 Is Enforced
Over the past two decades, the European Union has not hesitated to activate punitive measures against several partners when core democratic norms were breached:
- Belarus: Sanctions and diplomatic downgrades were swiftly imposed following the crackdown on opposition protests and blatant election manipulation under the Lukashenko regime.
- Russia: In response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and later the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU suspended cooperation agreements, froze assets, and levied sweeping sanctions — justified, in part, under Article 2.
- Syria: The Assad regime's well-documented war crimes led to a freeze in bilateral engagement and stringent sanctions on individuals and sectors.
- Tunisia: As the country slid back into authoritarian practices and human rights violations, particularly regarding migrant treatment, the EU responded by reconsidering aid and partnership terms.
- Palestine: The EU has at times withheld funding from the Palestinian Authority over alleged incitement in educational materials or perceived deficiencies in governance — invoking, explicitly or implicitly, human rights conditionality.
When Article 2 Falls Silent
Yet in the case of Israel, a country enjoying the benefits of an Association Agreement since 2000, the EU has consistently failed to enforce the same conditionality — despite overwhelming documentation of:
- Systematic human rights violations in occupied Palestinian territories;
- Disproportionate and indiscriminate military actions;
- Settlement expansions deemed illegal under international law;
- Ongoing blockade policies and collective punishment.
Not only has the EU failed to suspend or review the agreement — it has continued to expand sectoral cooperation and technological exchanges. At no point has Article 2 been activated as a basis for reconsidering or even conditioning these privileges.
The Ultimate Contradiction
This inconsistency becomes even more striking when one considers the EU’s scrutiny of Palestinian curricula for alleged incitement, while entirely overlooking the presence of extreme ethno-religious narratives within Israeli educational and political discourse — including supremacist interpretations of Talmudic passages taught or referenced by public figures and political parties. Passages that — when cited by Palestinians — would have triggered immediate calls for accountability are tolerated, ignored, or reframed when echoed in Israeli institutions.
The asymmetry in response is not merely legal — it is profoundly moral.
The Question
How can a legal clause so forcefully invoked against vulnerable or geopolitically expendable actors be so conspicuously ignored when applied to a strategic ally — even one credibly accused of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and war crimes?
If Article 2 is not universal, then it is not principled.
And if it is not principled, then what remains of the EU’s moral authority?