This paper aims to assess competing explanatory hypotheses for substantial changes in EU foreign policy. Three main factors are presented and explored. First, policy change could be linked to a shift in the substantial position of key member states, as the more classic realist perspective would suggest. Second, building on Schimmelfennig’s explanation for the Eastern enlargement, policy change might result from normative obligations catching up with the EU. Finally, change might flow from a change in policy making practices prevailing in the policy communities in charge of addressing a given topic. The paper tests these hypotheses in the case study of the EU stance towards Israel and, more specifically, the EU decision in July 2013 to adopt guidelines on settlements. The conclusion reached is that while interests explain the context, practices are what actually delivers the change.
