After more than a year of war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, divisions among European Union member states have left Brussels largely on the sidelines in efforts to bring the fighting to an end. Now, with the European Commission readying for a transition and ahead of a consequential U.S. presidential election, the EU may find it even harder to make an impact on efforts to end the conflict, which has now spread to southern Lebanon and could end up in a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran.
Back on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas carried out a murderous rampage in southern Israel and abducted more than 200 hostages, the EU was quick to express its solidarity with Israel. Brussels swiftly posted an image of an Israeli flag lighting up a wall of EU headquarters, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen flew to the grieving country to offer condolences on behalf of the bloc in person.
The EU leadership and its member states condemned Hamas and sought the immediate release of the hostages, and even when the Israeli military began pounding Gaza, resulting in massive civilian casualties, most of them opposed a cease-fire. On Oct. 25, when the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution calling for a cease-fire, just eight EU member states voted in favor, while four opposed and 15 abstained, in what was seen as tacit support for the Israeli government.
The wide-spread backing was partly in the hope that military pressure would work and compel Hamas to release the hostages it held. But many also feared that opposing Israel’s military campaign might be construed as questioning its right to defend itself, a bad look given the degree to which the EU’s Israel policy is informed by the legacy of the Holocaust and the historical injustices committed against the Jewish people in Europe.
As the months went by, the death toll in Gaza mounted, with more than 40,000 people now reported as killed, amid allegations of war crimes and a case brought before the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide. With the changing circumstances, it became untenable for the EU to keep up the same level of support.
In December, when the U.N. General Assembly again voted on a cease-fire resolution, 17 member states voted in favor, while only two voted against and eight abstained. By June, the EU unanimously supported U.S. President Joe Biden’s new cease-fire proposal.
Though there is now agreement on the need for a cease-fire, the EU’s top leadership and member states have also had differences of opinion on various other aspects of the conflict, however nuanced.
The divisions came to the fore immediately. When von der Leyen, a German conservative, visited Israel days after the Oct. 7 attack, she was accused of having an unacceptable bias. Meanwhile, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borell, a Spanish socialist, expressed opposition to Israel’s military campaign and actively pushed for a two-state solution.
In January, Borell held a conference of EU foreign ministers and Israeli and Palestinian representatives in a bid to jumpstart long-stagnant discussions of a two-state solution. But hours before the meeting was set to begin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the idea of a Palestinian state as an “existential threat” to Israel, while vowing to block the establishment of one for as long as he was prime minister.
Divisions among member states are likely to remain, especially if Israel continues to bomb Gaza and carries out a full-fledged invasion of Lebanon.
At the U.N. General Assembly last month, Borell once again made a case for an independent Palestinian state, but admitted there was still no unanimity in the union on the issue. “Even though we all agree that there is not another possible solution, we do not agree on how and when to implement that only solution,” he said.
While the EU officially backs a two-state solution to the conflict, some member states say they don’t think now is the right time to pursue it. Sources in the EU said the right-wing governments of Austria and Hungary largely parrot the current consensus across Israel’s political spectrum, military command and society that agreeing to a Palestinian state in the aftermath of Oct. 7 would reward Hamas and encourage terrorism.
Perhaps the most symbolically significant sign of the shifts in European opinion on the war come from Germany. Historically among the most vociferous backers of Israel due to its World War II-era legacy, Germany initially firmly backed Israel’s military operations in Gaza and as recently as this week assured Israel that it will continue to supply weapons. Berlin even imposed restrictions on pro-Palestinian protests. And yet, in recent months, it seems to have adopted a more nuanced position.
In September, German Foreign Minister Annalina Baerbock said that a military approach alone could not offer a solution to the conflict, while simultaneously calling on the Israeli government to stop settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
“Anyone who attacks people, drives them out of their homes or even kills them must be held accountable and severely punished,” she said, referring to the attacks in the West Bank. “The Israeli government could regain lost international trust, in my view, by stopping the current settlement projects as a first step,” she added.
The bloc also disagrees on how to deal with allegations of double standards when it comes to international law, against the backdrop of Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, which the EU has vigorously opposed. While some insist on a full-throated defense of international law, even at the cost of embarrassing a key international partner, others were uncomfortable when the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes alongside warrants for Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar and several other of the group’s leaders in May.
Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib posted on X that “[c]rimes committed in Gaza must be prosecuted at the highest level, regardless of the perpetrators,” in reference to the warrants. By contrast, the German government released a statement arguing that the “simultaneous application for arrest warrants against the Hamas leaders on the one hand and the two Israeli officials on the other hand has created the inaccurate impression that they are being equated.”
Some now argue that the EU must inflict costs on Israel if it doesn’t stop bombing Gaza.
Evin Incir, a Swedish member of the European Parliament on the foreign affairs committee of the Socialists and Democrats group, wants the EU to use its economic leverage over Israel to pressure it to change course. “What we could do concretely is freeze the EU-Israel Association Agreement until Israel starts to respect international law,” she told WPR.
Incir also called for an arms embargo, an idea echoed by French President Emmanuel Macron last week, as Israel began its ground operations against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. “The priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza,” Macron told FranceInter radio. He also warned against an escalation in Lebanon, which he declared “cannot become a new Gaza.”
Divisions among member states are likely to remain, especially if Israel continues to bomb Gaza—operations picked up in intensity there this week after having tracked downward over the past few months—and carries out a full-fledged invasion of Lebanon. But the frequent reprimands that emanated from Borell’s office are likely to be toned down as his term winds down, with his successor—former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who will take over in December—expected to invest her energies in Ukraine instead.
Kallas’ mission statement for her five-year term focuses on “the day after” in Gaza, but it remains unclear what that means and how she will approach the conflict, particularly if it expands to the wider region. There will also be more pressure on her to pursue an independent EU policy if former President Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election in November.
Traditionally, the EU takes its cue from the U.S. on key foreign policy questions, but Trump’s return to the White House could further deepen the EU’s divisions on the issue, given his one-sided first-term track record on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Incir, the Swedish MEP, is calling on the EU to “stop outsourcing the policy to the U.S.” as if Brussels were Washington’s “younger sibling.”
And yet that’s exactly the path the EU may prefer, especially if it prioritizes its own security challenges in the face of a looming Russian threat and fears that Trump may withdraw the U.S. from NATO.
An Israeli lobbyist in Brussels acknowledged that support there for Israel isn’t as loud as it was a year ago, but he added that there has been no practical fall-out from the criticism either. At a day-long event in Brussels last month, an Israeli government representative and several former generals focused on the Russia-Iran axis, painting it as a common denominator linking the war in Ukraine to the wider war now looming in the Middle East. They hope that will resonate with Kallas and the rest of the EU moving forward.
Anchal Vohra is a Brussels-based analyst and columnist for Foreign Policy magazine and a commentator for POLITICO, Europe. She writes on current affairs in India, the Middle East and the European Union and is currently studying the green transition. She has been a TV and print correspondent for nearly two decades, with stints in New Delhi and Beirut.