Ursula von der Leyen urges the EU to provide endless support Israel and in turn causes a earthquake within the European institutions. The point of contention is the speech by the President of the European Commission on Thursday evening at the Hudson Institute Washington in the presence, among others, of the EU Council President, Charles Michelcertainly not happy with this forward movement of the head Berlaymont Palace. Because in his long speech he unconditionally sided with Israel and United StatesGerman politicians have never mentioned the need for one De-escalation in Gaza and the work necessary to promote it Two-state solution, official position of the EU. Then on Friday, a rift emerged between two of the three European institutions, pushing von der Leyen and Michel to organize two, according to rumors published by Politico separate bilaterals with the president Joe Biden. So a mission intended to convey the unity of the Western Front in international dossiers was transformed into the photo of Disintegration of Europe.
The disappointment caused by von der Leyen about the buildings of Brussels This is also evident in the words of a senior European official: The Union’s position “was expressed by the High Representative and the President of the European Council. The EU’s foreign policy position is determined and decided by the member states and the Council. The rest, with all due respect personal opinions which can be completely legitimate, it does not represent the position of the EU“.
It is not the first time that von der Leyen’s personal views and initiatives have shaken European institutions. This also happened last March, during the Commission President’s visit to the United States, where she met Biden. On this occasion, the two signed a joint note establishing cooperation between Europe and the United States Reduce dependence on Beijing and limit the export of high-tech products. Chaos broke out in some European law firms, which protested so violently that the European Council made a motion “a statement” to the law firms. While on October 4th, after the rejection of the Tunisia to collect the first tranche of EU aid 60 millionIt was Michel himself who criticized the attitude of the head of the Commission, who was guilty of not including the member states in the negotiations: “It is important.” Follow the instructions and ensure that Member States give the Commission their mandate and that then, during that process, Member States say yes or no to what the Commission has negotiated. This is a clear lesson because the involvement of Member States is fundamental to success.”
Message received? No chance. In this case too, the protests came anonymously, but they are an indication of the climate that prevails in the corridors of the Brussels institutions. “Only the declaration of the European Council, drawn up by the Heads of State and Government on behalf of the Member States, represents the Union’s position” and declares “the resumption of peace process as the only possible solution for this matter.” A strategy that von der Leyen didn’t even mention in her speech. The source noted that it was very “uncomfortable” for a “terrorist act” like the attack Hamas caused “political consequences” because it was the “reaction” to the terrorist attack that “produced political consequences”. The EU “continues to push for a sustainable peace based on a two-state solution” through new “efforts” to “relaunch the Middle East peace process.” Exactly what the 27 leaders said.”
Completely different words than the head of the EU Commissioner in her speech in Washington: “Our democracies are.” Under fire continuously and systematically by those who detest freedom because it threatens their rule – he said – For more than 600 days our friends have been in Ukraine They fight and die for their freedom against Russian aggression. And now Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history, the worst mass extermination of Jews since thenholocaust. These two crises, however different, require that Europe and America take a stand and stick together.” Von der Leyen’s foreign policy idea is that of a US-EU-led strategy that, despite the rise and pressure of other major powers, influences the most important ones regions of the world. China primarily. “What is at stake,” he continued, “dwarfs what we see in these difficult days.” We are shaping the story of our future. And I believe that Europe and the United States have a duty to shape this future together.” However, according to his statements, this strategy does not seem to envisage the diplomatic route, but rather a direct confrontation with a power like the USA Russia and his allies: “Iran, protector of Hamas, just wants to stir up chaos. Russia, Iran’s military expert, is monitoring the situation closely. Russia and Hamas are similar. As the President said Volodymyr Zelensky, their “essence is the same”. Both deliberately sought out innocent civilians, including infants and children, to kill or take hostage. It’s a barbaric way to fight. And if left unchecked, this contagion has the potential to spread from Europe throughout the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific.”
Ursula von der Leyen’s intervention not only angered the European law firms and thus also the EU Council. Even in the corridors of the European Parliament, the disappointment is not hidden. Internal sources who have heard Ilfattoquotidiano.it speak of “un bad mood that has never existed before during this legislative period.” Also because von der Leyen’s forward flight has not only “disempowered” the member states, but has actually disempowered them boycotted a resolution of the plenary session, which was approved by a large majority on Thursday and which, in addition to strongly condemning the attack by Hamas, also called for “immediate measures”. Release of the hostagesthe determination of serious responsibility for the Gaza hospital bombing, one humanitarian pause to provide relief to the civilian population. “The visit of von der Leyen and the President of the EU Parliament, Roberta Metsola, had already caused some discontent in Israel,” the sources explain to Ilfattoquotidiano.it. Added to this, however, is the attitude expressed in Washington with even greater force. What worried the various political forces in the plenary session was the Federal President’s decision to position the EU in a certain international position without a mandate and without prior consultation with the member states. It is a serious intervention.” And the consequences, they explain from Brussels, could be serious for several reasons: “In addition to the political question,” they add, “it was not taken into account that there are still such.” Dozens of European citizens in the hands of Hamas. When you side so clearly with the United States and Israel, you are an active player in the conflict. And that makes it even more complicated to negotiate release of people in the hands of Islamists.” Also because the strategy of Tel Aviv It has already been clear since Friday: according to the BBC’s revelations, the government actually did it rejected the ceasefire proposal sent by Hamas in exchange for a partial release of prisoners. “There is also a risk Internal security of the EU – continues the source – The tension is already high, some countries have increased it the terror warningas the arrests of the last few days showAttack in Brussels. When you become an active part of the conflict, you also expose yourself to the actions of, even if you do not play a major role in the turmoil in the Middle East and Muslim countries resting cells or Lone wolves on our territory.”
Those who visit the buildings of the European institutions believe that von der Leyen’s unilateral decisions are linked to a precise plan ahead of the vote next June. A election campaign The aim of this is, in addition to confirming German policy at the Berlaymont summit, to also send a clear message: stand by Washington, always and in any case. Despite the projects of greater autonomy carried out by the heads of state and government of the most important European countries, Emmanuel Macron in advance. The question currently circulating in Brussels is: How long will von der Leyen continue her election campaign on the subject of international crises? And what room for maneuver do the Brussels institutions have if they push for such decidedly pro-American positions?