Despite mounting evidence of war crimes in Gaza and the International Criminal Court issuing a warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the European Union and most of its member states continue to hold back from taking any action—no sanctions, no diplomatic rupture, no boycott. Why?
Why the EU Hesitates to Act
- Germany’s Historical Legacy: “Staatsräson”
Germany, arguably Israel’s closest ally in Europe, has long framed Israel’s security as a core tenet of its national identity—a Staatsräson. Rooted in its historical responsibility for the Holocaust, this doctrine continues to shape Berlin’s foreign policy. Although Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently expressed doubts about Israel’s goals in Gaza, Germany remains fundamentally constrained by a collective guilt that translates into political paralysis. Criticizing Israel is seen as too risky, too loaded—almost a betrayal of national conscience.
Curbing free speech, the right to protest, and academic freedom — long considered sacrosanct in any liberal democracy — no longer seems to be in Germany, and no action is taken by the European Union against Germany. In the government’s zealous campaign against antisemitism, these fundamental liberties are now treated as lesser concerns, collateral damage in what they see as a moral crusade.
German media coverage of the war in Gaza remains largely muted or one-sided, failing to critically examine Israel’s actions or amplify Palestinian perspectives. While political rhetoric is hardening—evident in Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s admission of disillusionment and growing calls to halt arms exports—the press continues to lag behind public sentiment and international outcry, although after two months of Israel’s total blockade on Gaza, some cracks have begun to appear in the German media. This disconnect exposes a troubling reluctance in German journalism to confront uncomfortable truths, rooted in historical guilt but resulting in journalistic paralysis.
- Deep Divisions Within the EU
The EU is sharply divided when it comes to Israel and Palestine. On one side, countries like Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia have recognized the State of Palestine, backed international legal proceedings against Israel, and remained steadfast in supporting UNRWA and UN resolutions. On the other hand, Hungary and the Czech Republic have doubled down on their support for Netanyahu—Hungary even pulled out of the ICC altogether. Most EU countries, however, sit uncomfortably in the middle, paralyzed by internal disagreement and wary of breaking ranks.
Recently, the Netherlands made a formal request to review Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement (backed by 17 EU Member States), citing Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip and the proposed new system for aid distribution as seemingly being incompatible with international humanitarian law and principles. Pending the review, the Netherlands will withhold its approval of the extension of the EU-Israel Action Plan. The review will assess Israel’s compliance with human rights and democratic principles, which an essential element of the agreement. This is the first step in a procedure that could eventually lead to the suspension of the agreement.
However, the European Commission is unlikely to impose sanctions or suspend the free trade agreement with Israel. According to EUobserver, the EU External Action Service is behind everyone’s expectations and is still ‘reviewing’ whether Israel’s actions warrant a ‘freezing’ of relations. An early internal report of 2024 still stated that Israel had not broken Article 2 of the bilateral agreement on human-rights compliance. Sources told, however, that it is going to be corrected for the publication of this report.
Meanwhile, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese is calling for EU officials to face charges of complicity in war crimes.
- Trade, Arms, and Cold Interests
Let’s not pretend morality always leads. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner. Arms exports are part of this relationship: between 2018 and 2022, EU countries exported €1.76 billion in weapons to Israel—Germany alone accounted for nearly a third. These ties aren’t easily severed.
Economic pragmatism often trumps human rights, even when the cost is measured in tens of thousands of civilian lives. However, there is a price to pay: Europe has lost its standing as a beacon of human rights and moral authority. To the Global South — and much of the rest of the world — it now appears as the epitome of double standards.
- The Weaponization of Antisemitism
In many European capitals—especially Berlin—criticism of Israel is still reflexively labeled as antisemitic. This false equivalence is a powerful silencer. Cultural institutions and NGOs have seen funding slashed simply for supporting Palestinian rights. The result? A stifling of free expression and a political climate where demanding justice for Palestinians risks reputational ruin. Antisemitism must be confronted, without question. But shielding a state that is committing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and possibly genocide from accountability by weaponizing the trauma of the Holocaust does no justice to history, nor to truth. Brazilian President Lula da Silva keeps reminding the world that what Netanyahu is doing to the Palestinian people can legitimately be compared to the Holocaust.
- Lack of Political Courage
Even when initiatives do emerge—like the recent push to review Israel’s compliance with its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel Association Agreement—actual consequences remain elusive. The suspension of Israel’s preferential trade benefits requires a qualified majority, both in number of states and population. Without Germany or Italy on board, that majority won’t happen. So far, Italy’s hard-right government under Giorgia Meloni hasn’t budged, and Germany remains caught in its historical guilt.
A Shift on the Horizon?
Still, something is shifting. The UK has paused its trade deal negotiations with Israel—a symbolic move, but a move nonetheless. France is speaking louder, even floating the idea of targeted sanctions. The Netherlands—traditionally pro-Israel—was the country that formally requested the EU Commission review. Spain has cancelled arms exports, and French dockworkers in Marseille refused to load arms to Israel because they did not want to be complicit in genocide. That alone is significant. There’s a slow, tentative awakening happening in Brussels and across Europe. Whether it leads to action remains uncertain.
In Conclusion
The EU’s failure to respond robustly to Israel’s actions in Gaza stems from a toxic mix of historical guilt, internal divisions, confusion between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism, economic interests, political cowardice, and the behind-the-scenes influence of Israeli lobbying. What is too often missing is moral clarity and the judgment of history—and an honest reckoning with the weight of being complicit in genocide.
Yet, the moral imperative grows clearer by the day. If the EU wants to be taken seriously as a global actor committed to human rights and international law, it must find the courage to hold even its closest allies, like Israel, to account.
For failing to take any concrete steps to halt the war crimes unfolding in Gaza—and, worse, for having offered Israel economic, military, intelligence, and political support—most EU member states and officials have spent Europe’s moral capital. Today, across the Global South and well beyond, the EU is seen as a symbol of double standards and empty rhetoric on human rights. The mounting calls to hold EU officials liable for complicity in war crimes lay bare the world’s disillusionment and the EU’s own collapse as a credible champion of human rights.
In sum, Europe doesn’t lack leverage—Israel’s economy is deeply tied to the European market. What is lacking is moral clarity, historical awareness of having been complicit in an atrocious event comparable to the Holocaust, and the political will to confront it. But those, thankfully, are not fixed traits. They can change. And they must.
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics
