Live

Europe’s shift before the storm

At the end of July, the European political scene was in turmoil over the Palestinian issue. The acute famine—especially among children in Gaza—as well as Israel’s announcements regarding the expansion of settlements forced European politics, known for its inflexibility on this issue, to take highly symbolic political action, with the common elements of distancing themselves from Washington and increasing pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu.

On July 23, French President Emmanuel Macron informed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz of his intention to recognize a Palestinian state in September. The very next day, he announced it publicly, defining this announcement as an act of “commitment to a just and lasting peace.” At the same time, in a post on X, he stressed that peace requires “an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and massive humanitarian aid.” Politically, Macron’s statement set the framework for the recognition of Palestine in the context of a long-lasting sustainable peace, subject to the conditions of the demilitarization of Hamas and the full recognition of Israel, factors that contribute “to the security of all in the Middle East.”

A week later, on July 29, Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela announced that the country would proceed with the official recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. The move, which comes after weeks of political pressure from both the ruling party and the opposition, is based on the country’s historically pro-Palestinian stance and its steadfast support for a two-state solution. In doing so, Malta joins Ireland, Norway, and Spain, which had already taken similar steps in May.

Macron’s decision, the first by a G7 member country, was interpreted as twofold: on the one hand, to put pressure on European allies, especially the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy to return to the two-state solution, and on the other hand, to send a clear message to Tel Aviv that it is paying the political price for the genocide in Gaza. The reactions of the US and Israel were along the same lines, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio describing the move as «reckless decision».  Netanyahu once again spoke of the existential threat to Israel- with France advocating to this direction- referring to a «launch pad to annihilate Israel».

 

The decision of the French President seems to have partially achieved its goal, acting as a catalyst for developments in London. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on July 30 that Britain would recognize a Palestinian state in September. This would be under the conditions, that Israel did not agree to a ceasefire and committed to a peace process that would lead to a two-state solution and refrained from any possible annexation of West Bank territories, conditions that the British government knows Netanyahu categorically rejects. Israel’s stance is understandable given its actions to date, but even more so after the Knesset passed a non-binding motion  a few days earlier, with 71 votes in favor and 13 against, a non-binding proposal to annex the occupied West Bank, including the Jordan Valley and the settlements. Despite its symbolic nature, this move by Netanyahu’s coalition was seen by the Palestinian Authority as a “direct attack on the rights of the Palestinian people” and undermining any prospect of a two-state solution. The Palestinian Foreign Ministry denounced these unilateral actions as a flagrant violation of international law and a reinforcement of an “apartheid regime” in the West Bank.

The British government’s decision to frame recognition as a matter of choice for Israel certainly gives the impression of political influence rather than a simple gesture of solidarity. Domestically, however, pressure had reached a breaking point: ministers and MPs, even from within the government, called for immediate recognition, warning that “an inalienable right cannot be subject to conditions.” This climate is fueled by the image of humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with the UN talking about “spreading famine” and food security experts warning that “the worst-case scenario of famine is already unfolding.” This famine in Gaza has not arisen ex deo, but is the product of conscious political choices. Since the start of the war, Israel has imposed a complete siege on Gaza, cutting off water, food, fuel, electricity, telecommunications, and constantly targeting journalists, going way beyond any limits to kill people who were reporting on what was happening inside the walls.

Even now, deliberate food deprivation is affecting Palestinian journalists, who work under blockade, constant displacement, and communication blackouts, with organizations such as the CPJ warning that, unless immediate action is taken, “there will be no one left in Gaza to tell the story.” In the same tragic vein, on August 10, 2025, Israel launched a targeted attack on a tent housing journalists outside al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, an attack that claimed the lives of four Al Jazeera employees and two freelancers. This constitutes a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, which, in Article 79 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, explicitly recognizes that journalists covering armed conflicts are civilians and protected from attack. This attack was the first attack by Israel on journalists that was recognised as such by Israel, with the caveat, of course, that their basic recognition by Israel was that they were terrorists. 

Exactly, despite Israel’s repeated accusations that Anas al-Sharif led a “Hamas terrorist group,” no independent and reliable evidence has been presented, while organizations such as RSF, CPJ, and Amnesty International characterize the accusations as baseless and his execution as a war crime. The evidence fits into a recurring pattern, where Israeli officials target journalists with unsubstantiated accusations before killing them, as in the case of Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022, for which there has also been no accountability.

Since the war began on October 7, 2023, nearly 270 journalists and media workers have been killed, the majority of them Palestinians, while international media remain banned from entering Gaza, depriving the global public of critical evidence of possible violations of the laws of war. The absence of meaningful and proportionate international sanctions not only undermines the protection of journalists, but also sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the very possibility of documenting war crimes.

Moreover, previous statements by senior Israeli ministers, often repeated with dehumanizing rhetoric and emphasizing the need to prevent “even a gram of humanitarian aid” from entering, reflect the deliberate nature of this policy. From humanitarian organizations to the UN, everyone has documented the systematic use of hunger as a method of warfare, with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court having brought charges of war crimes. As famine expert Alex de Waal notes, food deprivation “You can’t starve anyone by accident. It has to be deliberate and sustained”.

In the wake of the announcement of the plan to occupy Gaza: the European reaction and the first cracks

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal and the Israeli security cabinet’s approval of the plan for military occupation of the city of Gaza envisages the evacuation of approximately 800,000–1,000,000 people. In the current situation, the so-called “evacuation” of Gaza is equivalent to forced relocation to strictly controlled military “humanitarian zones” in the southern part of the Strip or even outside it. Despite the government’s rhetoric about “voluntary withdrawal,” this is a violent and mass displacement in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of civilian populations from occupied territories.

Furthermore, the very term “humanitarian zones” is seriously questioned, as during the bombings even areas designated as safe — as well as humanitarian corridors — were targeted, undermining any notion of protection for civilians.At the same time, proposals for permanent relocation to third countries such as South Sudan, Libya, or Morocco are seen as an attempt to alter the demographic and political character of Gaza, with incalculable consequences for the refugees’ right of return. The relevant timetable provides for three months of encirclement and military operations, followed by the establishment of “alternative political administration” outside Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which has prompted strong warnings of massive civilian casualties, forced displacement, and flagrant violations of international law.

European political outrage was expressed immediately, which is rare, especially at the collective level, on the part of European governments. Greece co-signed with Britain, France, Slovenia, and Denmark in a joint statement to the UN Security Council, describing the plan as a move that “will endanger the lives of all civilians” and exacerbate the starvation already experienced by the Palestinian population. Similarly, eight European countries, including Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Portugal, collectively condemned the decision, warning that it would undermine the prospect of a two-state solution and cause “unacceptably high casualties.”

This approach was reinforced by senior European officials, with European Council President António Costa stating that such a move “must have consequences” for EU-Israel relations, stressing that it violates the recent agreement announced by the High Representative on July 19. In the same vein, albeit in a much more subdued tone, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on Israel to reconsider the plan, while the Commission is already discussing the partial suspension of European funding for Israeli start-ups, the first step in economic pressure that would directly link Israel’s policy to its trade and technological relations with Europe. Finally, UN Deputy Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca warned that the implementation of the plan would be “another horrific chapter” with repercussions that would extend beyond the Israel-Palestine border, while High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk spoke of possible “crimes of atrocity.”

The Israeli government remains unyielding, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that the operation is “the best way to end the war.” However, the reaction within Israel, even from hostage families and the opposition, reveals rifts at the national level. Meanwhile, in central Tel Aviv, more than 100,000 protesters demanded an immediate ceasefire and the release of the hostages, accusing the government of disregarding both human life and the national interest, points that widen the gap between the leadership and society.

From arms embargoes to investment decommitments

In Europe, the debate over possible sanctions or the suspension of agreements with Israel is gaining new momentum, but divisions among member states leave open the question of whether criticism will translate into political action. Announcements to date place these measures within a spectrum that covers classic diplomatic tools in the form of economic isolation.

At the national level, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced the immediate suspension of all exports of military equipment that could be used in Gaza. Although Germany has consistently recognized Israel’s “right to self-defense” in its statements over time, it is now clear that Berlin also links military sales to Israel’s failure to comply with international law, with the latest decision coming as an attempt to avoid further humanitarian disaster. This decision is particularly significant as Germany is the second largest supplier of Israeli weapons after the US, with exports worth €485 million since the start of the war in October 2023.

Further north, Norway is moving toward economic disinvestment as an indirect sanction through the Government Pension Fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund. This fund manages approximately $1.95 trillion and has holdings in 65 Israeli companies worth over $2 billion, many of which are involved in occupation, settlement expansion, and military operations linked to war crimes. However, Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg made it clear that a total divestment from all Israeli companies is not being considered, stressing that this would constitute discrimination on the basis of nationality.

The pressure for complete divestment is intensifying from civil society organizations and trade unions, which are calling for the fund’s ethical guidelines to be applied, as was the case in 2022 with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, the opposition is pushing to make the issue a central part of the pre-election agenda.

Although these moves do not yet constitute a unified and coordinated sanctions policy, they indicate that the noose of international economic pressure is beginning to tighten.

 

The last line of defence

What has become apparent in recent weeks is a shift in political compass, indicating a rare window of opportunity to break with the inertia that has characterized the EU’s approach to Palestine, especially in the last two years. The recognition of a Palestinian state by G7 leaders, the activation of economic pressure levers, and the differentiation from Washington are clear cracks in the West’s post-Cold War doctrine that the strategic alliance with Israel is above international accountability.

The essence of these will be judged on their persistence and consistency, not on their symbolism. International law—from the UN Charter to the Geneva Conventions—does not recognize any exception that allows starvation as a weapon of war, nor the violent annexation of occupied territories.

If the EU wants to speak as a single geopolitical entity rather than as a collection of states negotiating their ethics in terms of realpolitik, it must transform criticism into a mechanism for compliance, redefining commercial, technological, and military relations with clear terms of international legitimacy. From a standpoint of realism and hard facts if we want to speak in terms of realism and hard facts, the reality is that this raises the obligation to activate the principle of Responsibility to Protect. R2P, as adopted at the UN Summit in 2005, stipulates that the international community has a duty to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity when the perpetrator state itself refuses or is unable to do so. Therefore, in this context, why is the creation of safe humanitarian corridors, which would be guarded by international military forces under the mandate of the UN Security Council, not being considered?

This is a measure with historical roots and established in international law, which has been applied in similar cases of famine and humanitarian crisis, such as Operation Lifeline Sudan – institutionalized corridors of tranquillity for the transport of aid, diplomatically agreed humanitarian corridors under the UN/ICRC, with mixed supervision, Libya with full implementation of the measure, or the case of Nagorno-Karabakh – Lachin in 2022-2023, where a humanitarian corridor was created under Russian peacekeeping presence, a case that demonstrated how fragile these arrangements are without effective enforcement or the threat of substantial sanctions.

The geopolitical balance of the region is not only a matter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also a factor that affects Europe-US relations, the role of regional powers such as Turkey and Iran, and the credibility of the West in the Global South. If the EU once again limits itself to statements and piecemeal measures, the “shift before the storm” will be recorded as a missed moment of historic opportunity. If, on the contrary, it invests in a coherent strategy based on international law, it can set a new model in which security and rights are not negotiable privileges but indivisible principles.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article

Same serie articles

PulseZ monthly editorial – April edition

Two Massive Marches in Warsaw

3 AI startups that could change how we learn forever – Gen-E chapter 1

Words that hurt: the hidden bias in machine translation

TikTok Under Fire: Brussels Launches a Crackdown to Defend Democracy

Europe’s workforce is shrinking – and that’s a big deal