Israeli and European Jewish leadership demonstrate persistent misunderstanding of European Union foreign policy mechanisms by treating individual officeholders as determinants of institutional positions. This analytical failure—viewing Brussels as personality-driven rather than system-governed—prevents coherent strategic engagement and undermines diplomatic effectiveness for both parties.
Kallas Adopts Institutional Framework Despite Different Priorities
Kaja Kallas assumed the High Representative role in December 2024 with credentials suggesting potential policy shifts favorable to Israeli interests. The European Jewish Association chairman expressed optimism that Kallas would maintain “a more balanced approach” compared to her predecessor Josep Borrell, whose tenure featured consistent criticism Israeli officials characterized as “hostile”.
Initial reactions emphasized Kallas’s background: former Estonian prime minister focused primarily on Russian aggression, without Borrell’s extensive Middle East engagement history. Israeli diplomatic circles anticipated improvement, noting her November 2023 statement supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while condemning Hamas as “waging a ruthless campaign of terror with zero regard for human life.”
Yet within months, Kallas implemented precisely the institutional positions her predecessor advocated. In July 2025, she presented ten potential sanctions options to EU foreign ministers, ranging from suspending the entire EU-Israel Association Agreement to curbing trade ties, sanctioning ministers, imposing arms embargoes and halting visa-free travel. She confirmed to Euronews that €42.6 billion in annual EU-Israel trade includes 37% receiving preferential treatment—which suspension would impose “high cost for Israel.”
Kallas kept sanctions “on the table” despite Gaza ceasefire arrangements, warning that “the situation is fragile.” She criticized settlement expansion plans, stating construction would “permanently cut the geographical and territorial contiguity between East Jerusalem and the West Bank.” These positions mirror Borrell’s framework almost exactly—demonstrating institutional continuity rather than leadership-driven transformation.
The evolution reveals structural constraints on High Representative autonomy. Regardless of personal background or initial priorities, officeholders represent collective member state positions formulated through extensive diplomatic coordination. Individual preferences become subordinated to institutional consensus.
Borrell Represented Collective European Framework, Not Personal Agenda
Josep Borrell’s tenure featured unprecedented criticism of Israeli military operations in Gaza. He accused Israel of using “starvation as a weapon of war” and “provoking famine” during March 2024 foreign ministers meetings. He proposed suspending political dialogue with Israel over human rights violations, though member states blocked implementation.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz directly confronted Borrell over his sustained Israel criticism, asserting Borrell did not speak for Germany. This public friction created perception that Borrell pursued personal vendetta rather than institutional mandate—precisely the misinterpretation Israeli leadership embraced.
Yet academic analysis demonstrates otherwise. Scholars note that EU preferences for “excessive caution and restraint” risk “abdicating on foreign policy altogether”, citing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as example of institutional paralysis. Borrell’s activism represented attempt to overcome member state divisions, not imposition of personal ideology.
Following his December 2024 departure, Borrell accused Israel of conducting “the largest ethnic cleansing operation since the end of the Second World War” while accepting the Charles V European Award in Spain. These unrestrained comments—freed from institutional constraints—revealed personal views extending beyond positions he advocated while in office. The difference clarifies that his official tenure reflected moderated institutional consensus rather than maximum personal criticism.
The misunderstanding persists because observing surface-level personality differences obscures underlying policy continuity. Borrell’s Spanish social democratic background differed from Estonian liberal Kallas’s center-right credentials. Yet both implement identical frameworks because institutional structure determines acceptable positions far more than individual ideology.
Twenty-Seven Member States Generate Collective Positions Through Consensus
EU foreign policy requires unanimous agreement among all member states for implementation. This constraint fundamentally distinguishes Brussels from Washington or other centralized systems where executive authority enables unilateral action. Several countries including Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria have consistently prevented EU sanctions on Israel despite violations of Article 2 in the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
This veto power means High Representatives cannot impose policy through personal conviction. They negotiate compromises acceptable to divergent national interests—from Ireland and Spain advocating sanctions to Czech Republic coordinating opposition with Israeli government. Luxembourg Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel acknowledged bluntly that “almost nobody” listens to the EU anymore precisely because consensus requirements paralyze decisive action.
The institutional framework prioritizes stability over responsiveness. Positions evolve slowly through accumulated member state agreement rather than rapid executive decision-making. This produces policy inertia favoring established positions—including support for two-state solutions, opposition to settlement expansion, and insistence on international humanitarian law compliance—that persist regardless of personnel changes.
Jerusalem’s focus on individual officeholders therefore misidentifies policy drivers. When member states collectively support positions critical of Israeli actions, High Representatives articulate these views regardless of personal backgrounds. When member states divide, paralysis results—not because leadership lacks conviction but because institutional rules require unanimity.
Historical Pattern Demonstrates Structural Rather Than Personal Dynamics
Federica Mogherini preceded Borrell as High Representative from 2014-2019. Her tenure featured similar criticism of settlement expansion and insistence on Palestinian statehood through negotiations. Israeli officials characterized her approach as problematic—precisely the assessment later applied to Borrell despite different personalities and political backgrounds.
Recent corruption allegations against Mogherini generated celebration among some Israeli and European Jewish communities—revealing persistent belief that individual departures improve institutional relationships. Yet Mogherini left European politics years before these allegations emerged, making contemporary reactions analytically meaningless regarding current policy.
The pattern extends beyond Israel policy. Borrell’s controversial February 2021 visit to Moscow became widely criticized as humiliation when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the EU an “unreliable partner” while expelling three EU diplomats during their joint press conference. This failure stemmed from institutional divisions among member states regarding Russia engagement strategy—not Borrell’s personal diplomatic incompetence.
Similarly, tensions between Borrell and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over Gaza responses reflected institutional ambiguity about representation authority. Von der Leyen’s October 2023 Israel visit sparked controversy among European diplomats who felt she failed conveying demands for international law compliance while neglecting two-state solution emphasis. Borrell publicly criticized von der Leyen, stating she wasn’t entitled to represent EU foreign policy views independently.
These recurring conflicts demonstrate structural problems in EU institutional design rather than personality clashes. Multiple actors claim representation authority while member states maintain ultimate veto power—creating confusion about who speaks for Europe and what positions actually command collective support.
Values-Based Framework Constrains Policy Options Across Leadership Changes
EU foreign policy foundations rest on commitments to international law, human rights, democracy and territorial integrity through negotiated compromise rather than military conquest. These principles apply universally—constraining European responses to Russian aggression in Ukraine as much as Israeli operations in Gaza.
The EU-Israel Association Agreement explicitly bases relations on democracy principles and human rights respect. Article 2 violations theoretically trigger agreement suspension, though member state divisions prevent implementation. Nevertheless, the framework establishes parameters for legitimate criticism—enabling High Representatives to question Israeli compliance without requiring personal animosity as motivation.
This values orientation generates predictable European positions: support for two-state solutions preserving both Israeli security and Palestinian sovereignty, opposition to unilateral territorial changes through settlement expansion, insistence on civilian protection during military operations, and demands for humanitarian access. These positions remained consistent from Mogherini through Borrell to Kallas despite different leadership styles and regional priorities.
Israeli leadership treats these consistent positions as evidence of individual bias rather than institutional principle application. When Brussels criticizes settlement expansion or humanitarian access restrictions, Jerusalem attributes criticism to personal hostility rather than recognizing values-based policy constraints that bind all European officials regardless of personal disposition toward Israel.
The analytical failure becomes clearer when comparing European responses across regions. EU foreign policy emphasizes territorial integrity and international law regarding Russian actions in Ukraine—precisely the principles applied to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Consistency across contexts indicates principled framework rather than selective targeting.
Misunderstanding Prevents Strategic Diplomatic Engagement
Jerusalem’s personality-focused approach produces counterproductive diplomatic strategies. Resources concentrate on cultivating relationships with individual officials who lack autonomous authority to modify collective positions. When personnel changes occur, previous relationship investments become worthless while underlying policy continuity surprises Israeli officials expecting substantive shifts.
This pattern repeats across leadership transitions. Initial optimism following Mogherini’s departure gave way to disappointment with Borrell. Similar optimism regarding Kallas dissolved within months as she implemented identical institutional positions. Future High Representatives will likely generate identical cycles—initial hope followed by frustration—unless Israeli strategy evolves beyond personality focus.
Effective engagement requires addressing member state divisions directly rather than lobbying Brussels officials. Germany, Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary provide crucial vetoes preventing sanctions implementation. France, Ireland and Spain advocate stronger measures. This fragmentation creates opportunities for diplomatic intervention at national levels where policy actually forms—not at Brussels headquarters where officials merely aggregate collective positions.
European Jewish communities face similar misunderstanding risks. Antisemitism trends reflect broader societal dynamics rather than leadership decisions by specific European officials. Rising antisemitism across Europe stems from immigration patterns, economic anxieties, political polarization and Middle East conflict spillover—not from High Representative appointments or departures.
Expecting personnel changes to alter these structural forces demonstrates the same analytical confusion Israeli diplomacy exhibits. Individual officials implement collective frameworks shaped by societal conditions beyond their control. Celebrating Mogherini’s troubles or anticipating Kallas improvements misidentifies causal mechanisms driving European policies toward both Israel and Jewish communities.
Institutional Systems Require Institutional Engagement Strategies
Brussels operates through multilayered bureaucratic structures coordinating twenty-seven sovereign governments with divergent histories, strategic priorities and domestic political constraints. This complexity demands engagement strategies recognizing institutional rather than personal policy determination.
Effective Israeli diplomacy would establish permanent channels with European Commission services developing policy proposals, European External Action Service coordinating implementation, and most critically, national capitals where veto authority resides. Building coalitions among member states sympathetic to Israeli security concerns while acknowledging legitimate European humanitarian and legal principles could generate sustainable compromises.
Current approaches treat Europe as battlefield for symbolic victories—celebrating individual departures while ignoring unchanged institutional frameworks. This provides temporary emotional satisfaction without advancing strategic interests. Mogherini’s corruption allegations matter little when her successors implement identical policies through identical structures.
The challenge intensifies as European strategic autonomy debates accelerate. Trump administration policies reducing American security commitments pressure Europe toward greater defense independence and assertive foreign policy positions. This evolution will strengthen institutional frameworks rather than weaken them—making personality-focused engagement strategies even less effective.
Jerusalem faces choice: continue personality-focused approaches generating cyclical disappointment, or develop institutional understanding enabling strategic engagement with Europe’s actual decision-making structures. The former offers comfortable familiarity and occasional symbolic victories. The latter requires uncomfortable recognition that Europe functions fundamentally differently than Israel’s domestic political system or bilateral US relationship.
Conclusion: Structural Reality Versus Comforting Illusions
The recurring pattern—optimism about new leadership followed by disappointment as identical policies emerge—indicates Israeli strategic confusion about European Union governance. Brussels institutions aggregate member state preferences through consensus requirements that individual officeholders cannot override through personal conviction or diplomatic relationships.
Mogherini, Borrell and Kallas implement variations of identical frameworks because structural constraints and values-based principles determine acceptable positions independent of personality differences. Future High Representatives will face identical constraints producing identical policies until either EU institutional design changes or member state collective positions evolve.
Jerusalem’s celebration of Mogherini’s troubles six years after her departure demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding about European policy formation. Individual scandals matter little when institutional structures continue operating unchanged. Effective diplomacy requires engaging these structures directly rather than personalizing policy disagreements that reflect collective European positions.
The uncomfortable truth: Europe represents powerful global actor with coherent long-term worldview shaped by twenty-seven member states through consensus-driven processes. This system produces policy continuity that transcends individual leadership—frustrating those preferring personality-driven diplomacy but reflecting institutional design intentionally prioritizing stability over responsiveness.
Israel and European Jewish communities gain nothing from symbolic victories over departed officials. They gain potentially significant advantages from genuine institutional understanding enabling strategic engagement with European decision-making as it actually functions rather than as Jerusalem wishes it would function. Whether this strategic evolution occurs remains questionable—but without it, cyclical disappointment will continue indefinitely.
Original analysis inspired by Sharon Pardo from The Jerusalem Post. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
