Josep Borrell (La Pobla de Segur, Lleida, 77 years old) did not plan to be here today. Back in the Middle East, just seven days after concluding his five-year mandate as High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy of the EU. In September, what was originally going to be had ended – with concern and also in Lebanon. But just five days after taking off, the Mossad, the secret services abroad, surprised with the detonation of thousands of beepers and walkie-talkies that Hezbollah had commissioned; The Israeli army killed more than 550 people in a few hours (the largest massacre in Lebanon since the end of the civil war in 1990) and began to assassinate, one after another, the leaders of the Shiite militia party, including Hasan Nasrallah, transforming eleven months of low intensity war into an open conflict. “I didn’t expect to return, but I thought it was essential, because I have invested a lot in the Middle East conflict. And I have come to Lebanon because it is a country that can break into pieces,” he justifies in an interview in Beirut with this newspaper, after meeting, among others, Nayib Mikati, the Lebanese prime minister, and Nabih Berri, the president of the Parliament who is negotiating in name of Hezbollah a ceasefire that he does not see imminent.
“Everyone is waiting for Trump and I don’t think Netanyahu will grant Biden a ceasefire anywhere,” he says, before emphasizing – in reference to Iran and Hezbollah – that the country’s sovereignty has to remain in the hands of the Lebanese people, “not from an internal power, nor from a State within the State, nor from anyone who hijacks the sovereignty of the Lebanese people, whether from inside or outside the country.” Borrell avoids adding fuel to the fire by equivalent to one of those family secrets that everyone knows, but that no one talks about: his successor, the Estonian Kaja Kallas, will not foreseeably exercise what he has assumed during his mandate, for .
Between his previous trip and this one, everything has gotten worse in the region. The blue helmets to whom he went to encourage in person in September (the day before, for Hezbollah; in other cases for Israel, some intentionally). Between Lebanon and Gaza, deaths exceed one hundred daily and displaced people reach three million. Israeli troops are advancing in the south, fighting for two strategic heights against Hezbollah militants, whose missiles and drones are reaching further and further (240 this Sunday alone, including in the Tel Aviv area). The north of Gaza is experiencing a siege with new massive displacements and hunger as a weapon of war. The Israeli minister who is most in charge in the West Bank, Bezalel Smotrich, has declared 2025 the year to annex it and the one who denied him entry to the country and accused “anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel”, Israel Katz, has moved from Foreign Affairs to Defense.
Why have we come this far? “Because we have not been able to put a limit on Israel’s action,” Borrell responds. “It had to be saying ‘what you are doing, which is starving a population as a weapon of war, is not morally acceptable.’ This is exactly what the United Nations explains to me that is happening in Gaza. Whether we like it or not.”
The CFI’s decision inexorably marks the conversation. Because of its relevance and how it divides the EU. On Thursday, the court called for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his almost-wartime defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. And, although the Twenty-Seven are obliged to stop them if they step on their soil, they have reacted with very different tones, as almost always when the word Israel sneaks into the debate.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán promised to invite Netanyahu; Germany finds it “very difficult” to carry out such arrests and others have opted for verbal contortionism. Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Austria and Slovenia have announced, however, that they would arrest him. “I hope that European countries accept that being part of the ICC is not a la carte. It is not saying: ‘If it goes against Putin, I like it, and if it goes against Netanyahu, I don’t like it.’ […] Whoever is part of the court has signed a commitment. It is or it is not. It is not optional. It is a fundamental question. Because if Europe does not support the ICC, if there is a disarray, with everyone saying ‘I’ll see what I do’, the court is not viable. Neither the United States nor Russia are there, so the survival of the court depends on Europe’s ability to respect its decisions,” he argues.
“Stunning silence from the Commission”
He calls it the contrast between “the applause of some when the court acted against Putin and the thunderous silence when it is Netanyahu.” “A thunderous silence from the European Commission. And other countries, ambiguous. How can a country say that it does not know if it will respect international law? “What will its historical debt for the Holocaust have to do with respect for international law today?” he criticizes.
About to leave office, Borrell does not hide, Ursula von der Leyen. They have been in “clear disagreement” and spoke with a “very different” voice, although – remember – the treaties leave foreign policy in the hands of the European Council and him, the High Representative.
He also doesn’t hide his frustrations. The biggest: “Not having managed to avoid the humanitarian tragedy of Gaza.” “Hamas’ terrorist attacks must be condemned, of course, but one horror does not justify another. And I understand that Europeans, some, have been very prisoners of their ghosts of the past,” he points out.
He also seems hurt by the accusation of anti-Semitism that . “Every time someone criticizes a decision of the Government of Israel, they are an anti-Semite. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Pedro Sánchez, me… What there is is a Government that does things that are criticizable. “The word anti-Semitic cannot be used in vain, because it is linked to the most horrible events in our history.”
He gives as an example what happened before the Europa League soccer match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax fans, where the initial narrative that it was a “pogrom” motivated by anti-Semitism triumphed. He criticizes the “pressure” on the city’s mayor, Femke Halsema, to use that word, something for which he ended up apologizing. And remember that “the fans of the Israeli team did not respect the minute of silence for the victims of Valencia [por la dana]shouting and insulting Spain.” “Let’s use words to reflect the seriousness of the events. Let’s not trivialize. “It was a fight between fans,” he concludes.
