Europe's tepid response to Israel's strikes says a lot

The European Parliament in Brussels during a debate in May on the EU's response to Israel's plan for the Gaza Strip. EPA

The Middle East is on edge. The crisis in Gaza deepens daily. Diplomacy has stalled – a high-level UN conference to advance efforts towards a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict has been indefinitely postponed.

Meanwhile, the EU – whose response to the destruction of Gaza has been woefully inadequate – is more divided than ever now that Israel has opened another front with Iran. Its 27 member states are split between those that back Israel and those that are alarmed by the collapse of international law. The EU’s collective voice has largely been silent.

The EU is not incapable of strong action; its robust response to the war in Ukraine proves that. But Ukraine is seen as a neighbour, and Russia as a direct threat to EU and Nato security. Brussels’ rhetoric has been clear and can be summed up as the EU standing with Ukraine every step of the way.

When it comes to Gaza, however, the EU defaults to financial aid. An additional €25 million ($28.7 million) was pledged recently, bringing the EU’s total to more than €100 million this year. But what is sorely lacking is moral clarity – a principled, united voice calling on Israel to stop.

The EU’s former foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has been one of the few to speak out clearly. Addressing dignitaries last month while collecting the Charles V European Award in Spain he said Europe was “facing the largest ethnic cleansing operation since the end of the Second World War in order to create a splendid holiday destination once the millions of tonnes of rubble have been cleared from Gaza and the Palestinians have died or gone away”. The Middle East may lie outside the EU’s immediate sphere but geography is not the only issue for the bloc’s lack of action. It is also about leadership.

The Middle East may lie outside the EU’s immediate sphere but geography is not the only issue for the bloc’s lack of action

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, has shown a marked reluctance to engage on Gaza. Ms Kallas lacks knowledge of the Middle East — a startling deficiency for someone in her role. But surely within the vast bureaucracy of Brussels, she could find capable advisers with regional expertise?

Ms Kallas’s unwavering focus on Ukraine is personal. Her family suffered under Soviet oppression, and she has made it clear that her mission is to support Ukraine. But a seeming lack of parallel empathy for Palestinians – who are equally victims of overwhelming military force – is striking.

Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, a German politician, has faced intense criticism for her stance. Germany has not only defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza, but also imprisoned pro-Palestinian demonstrators and turned away Palestinian doctors invited to Germany for humanitarian lectures.

Ms von der Leyen has loudly condemned Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, but on Israel’s crimes in Gaza she has remained largely silent. She continues to blame Iran for this latest regional escalation – despite Israel’s initial strikes – and has been accused of pursuing a “pro-Israel solo run”, according to Irish MEP Barry Andrews. He noted that Mr Netanyahu’s recent speech justifying attacks on Iran “echoed President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq in 2003”.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has gone further, accusing EU governments of “hypocrisy and inaction” that is fuelling the suffering in Gaza. So, what can the EU do to regain its relevance – and its integrity?

First, it must abandon the requirement for unanimity in foreign policy decisions and move towards qualified majority voting. This would streamline decisions and prevent a handful of member states from blocking action.

Second, the EU should appoint a high-profile special envoy with real gravitas — someone respected by both Israelis and Palestinians, and who is trusted in the region. Candidates like Martin Griffiths, former UN humanitarian chief, or Kenneth Roth, long-time director of Human Rights Watch, would bring credibility, experience and moral authority.

Such an envoy could engage regional players – including Hamas, Israel, Egypt and Qatar – to push for a ceasefire, demand accountability for settler violence and begin sketching a roadmap for regional de-escalation.

Third, the EU must use its economic leverage. As Israel’s largest trading partner, the EU has influence — but rarely applies it. Brussels could suspend parts of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, re-direct aid to vetted Palestinian civil society groups, provide economic incentives to neighbouring states for de-escalation and impose targeted arms embargoes using the EU’s Common Position on Arms Exports when weapons are used in violation of international law.

And when it comes to Iran, the only sustainable path is diplomacy. The EU should reactivate its backchannels — through France, Germany, and the UK — to pursue arms control, sanctions relief and renewed diplomatic engagement, including on proxy groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis.

If it acts, this crisis could become an opportunity for the EU. It could reclaim its place as a regional power, not just a trade bloc. It could show that Europe can lead independently of the US. Most importantly, it could demonstrate that the EU is not just a cheque book for humanitarian aid but a credible broker for peace.