Europe's rude awakening on confronting Israel
https://arab.news/4bwtq
European leaders are undergoing what can only be described as a rude awakening as they wrestle with how to respond to the devastating conflict raging in Gaza and the surge of anti-Israel protests sweeping their nations.
After nearly 19 months of escalating violence, Europe is finally waking up to its collective responsibility — not only as a political union but as individual states and a shared cultural community — to address what has become a deep moral wound in the conscience of humanity.
Israel has long represented a sensitive and vulnerable issue for European nations, shaped not only by the historical trauma of Nazi persecution but also by centuries of European antisemitism and oppression of Jewish communities.
While the UK took on the controversial role of transferring Palestine — the homeland of Palestinians — to the Zionist movement, many other European states failed to challenge this historic and contentious territorial handover.
Here we stand today: Decades after Israel occupied Palestinian territories, displaced millions, created a vast Palestinian diaspora and committed numerous violations against the rightful inhabitants, we now face a conflict that Israeli officials themselves acknowledge could result in millions being killed or expelled from their ancestral homes.
When Netanyahu imposed a total blockade on humanitarian aid to more than 2 million Palestinians, the dam finally broke
Osama Al-Sharif
Oct. 7, 2023, marked a watershed moment. Yet Israel's response to that attack cannot justify the deaths of more than 54,000 people, overwhelmingly civilians. With Israel's current plans to reoccupy Gaza, tens of thousands more could perish.
European leaders had already shifted from unwavering support for Israel to a more cautious and critical stance regarding its methods and goals. But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu imposed a total blockade on humanitarian aid to more than 2 million Palestinians, the dam finally broke. Images of tens of thousands of civilians crowding desperately for scarce food under horrific conditions galvanized millions worldwide into protest.
Europe has long distinguished itself on the global stage as a defender of human rights. Gaza has exposed a glaring vulnerability in that reputation. The EU — Europe's crowning political achievement, embodying shared values — now finds itself trapped in an almost impossible position.
The EU has chosen to venture into uncharted political territory to uphold its fundamental principles while striving for unified action. Several countries — Spain, Ireland and Norway (though not an EU member) — last year recognized Palestine as a state, bringing the total number of the bloc's countries acknowledging Palestinian statehood to 10.
More notably, the UK and France now stand on the brink of recognizing Palestine. While this marks significant diplomatic progress, it changes little on the ground. Israel has threatened retaliation against countries that recognize Palestine. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar warned that if major powers like Britain and France were to formally recognize Palestinian independence, Israel would respond by annexing occupied land in the West Bank. But Israel has already confiscated major portions of the West Bank, with far-right ministers promising continued expansion regardless.
The EU as a collective body holds significant leverage to compel changes in Israeli policy. However, it must act in unity
Osama Al-Sharif
Such Israeli threats were predictable. But Europe can and should go further to reinforce its evolving position. For the first time, European countries are seriously debating sanctions against Israel, including trade restrictions and arms embargoes. Meanwhile, Israel continues to authorize new settlements in the West Bank, repeatedly violating international law.
European nations can pursue three concrete actions: sanction Israel for violating international law in Gaza and the West Bank; recognize Palestinian statehood; and support international investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes and genocide.
Israel will resist all three measures. The most predictable response will be accusations of antisemitism. But such claims today lack credibility. Many Jewish voices have emerged condemning Israel's actions in Gaza, drawing a clear distinction between historical Jewish suffering and current Israeli policies. Beyond this, the EU as a collective body holds significant leverage to compel changes in Israeli policy. However, the EU must act in unity. Currently, fewer than half of its members recognize Palestinian statehood.
Europe pioneered the recognition of Palestinian rights in the 1980s with the Venice Declaration. Since then, however, the EU has largely deferred to US leadership in the peace process, culminating in the Oslo Accords. Subsequently, the EU has provided billions in aid to the Palestinian Authority but has failed to prevent Israeli violations of those accords or the destruction of EU-funded Palestinian projects.
For the EU and European states to effectively confront Israel today, they must break free from US political dominance. The EU can still champion international bodies that uphold international law. While the US retreats from these legal foundations, the EU can emerge as a defender of the world order, advocating human rights and rules-based governance.
Europe's rude awakening may not immediately alter the trajectory of violence in Gaza. But it will make a difference. Israel cannot survive as a nation while ignoring international condemnation and the threat of sanctions for its actions. If it seeks to exist as a normal state, it must end its Gaza campaign and recognize Palestinians as equals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
43 minutes ago
- Arab News
Trains and talks: Turkiye's dual track in Ukraine war
Since the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's airspace has been closed and its roads have been unsafe for travel. Thus, trains have become the primary means of access. Over the past three years, numerous foreign leaders who have wanted to show their solidarity with Ukraine have taken trains to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky in the capital Kyiv. The 10-hour overnight train journey that takes them from southeastern Poland to Kyiv has come to be known as 'iron diplomacy' and acts a symbol of commitment. Typically, the schedule and exact route of these train journeys are kept confidential and two alternate routes are always prepared — one for the actual train and another for a decoy 'ghost train' to mitigate the risk of an attack. This was a precaution particularly used during then-US President Joe Biden's trip last year. Among the latest officials to embark on this symbolic journey was Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who was accompanied by a delegation of journalists. The Turkish media became the first to be given access to the train, which was heavily guarded, with security personnel both on board and along the route. Typically, during these journeys, the curtains remain closed to minimize visibility for Russian drones. However, the curtains were left open during Fidan's journey — signaling Turkiye's weight in the war and the changing conditions on the ground. This iron diplomacy is more than just taking world leaders from Poland to Ukraine via rail, it is pivotal in maintaining international support for Ukraine. Each journey demonstrates that, despite the war, Ukraine remains connected to the world. It is also an essential platform for fostering diplomacy and maintaining global attention on the war. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. For Turkiye, these diplomatic efforts reflect a broader strategy. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. Dr. Sinem Cengiz Since the start of the war, Ankara has carefully positioned itself as an actor capable of engaging with both Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among its latest attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the war is the so-called Istanbul process, which aims to bring the two sides together for peace talks. Two rounds of talks have been held under the Istanbul process, in May and June. Last month's meeting, which coincided with a visit by US President Donald Trump to the Gulf, did not result in a ceasefire but did achieve an agreement on a prisoner exchange. Monday's most recent round, chaired by Fidan and Turkiye's security establishment, also failed to secure a ceasefire. However, Fidan noted a 'more optimistic tone' as negotiations resumed. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. From the Istanbul process, Turkiye's broader goal is to convene a high-level summit between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Zelensky and Putin — a summit that could be a potential turning point in the war. With the Istanbul process, Turkiye has succeeded in bringing both parties together and it now aims to become the primary actor by creating a diplomatic space beyond the traditional US-Russia framework. Here, Ankara's role defies easy categorization. While some label it a mediator or negotiator, Turkiye more accurately acts as a facilitator. While a mediator, who enters the process to assist parties in search of a solution, is unfamiliar with the system or conflicting situation, the facilitator is part of the system where the wars arose. Turkiye is part of the geopolitical landscape impacted by the war — that is the Black Sea region. This region, historically vital to Turkiye's security and strategic interests, has become even more critical amid the ongoing Western-Russian rivalry. This proximity gives Ankara both the incentive and the leverage to remain engaged. Turkiye's motivation also stems from its desire to expand its influence on the international stage, safeguard regional stability and carve a role for itself in the postwar settlement. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. Dr. Sinem Cengiz So far, all efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated peace have failed. However, a glimmer of hope remains for a diplomatic breakthrough that could finally end the war. This is why both the US and the EU have placed their hopes in Turkiye, while Ankara, in turn, is relying heavily on its carefully managed relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv. Although the West has often been uneasy about Turkiye's close ties with Russia, there is now growing recognition — both in Washington and across European capitals — of the value of having a partner that can maintain open lines of communication with the Kremlin. This shift is evident in Trump's cautious approach in order to avoid any problems with Turkiye and the EU's increasing emphasis on Ankara's role in ensuring regional security and acting as a diplomatic bridge between East and West. Despite its vocal support for Ukraine's NATO aspirations and its alignment with Western institutions, Turkiye has successfully compartmentalized its relationship with Russia. Turkiye relies on two main characteristics of a facilitator to achieve success: trust and persuasiveness. Ankara's continued trust-building with both Moscow and Kyiv makes it uniquely suited for the role of potential facilitator, while its style of personal diplomacy plays a significant role in its persuasiveness. If Turkiye can secure a breakthrough via the Istanbul process, it would be a game-changer not only for Ankara but also for Europe and Russia. Such an outcome would also confirm the words of veteran Turkish ambassador Ertugrul Apakan: 'Success might sometimes only be achieved after many failed attempts ... There is no single recipe for successful mediation, just as no conflict is the same as another.'
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Israeli army admits to Gaza strike
DUBAI: The Israeli military has admitted to the BBC that it conducted a strike on the Al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, which reportedly killed at least one Palestinian and injured 30 others. The attack took place on Sunday, soon after an incident near a new aid distribution center in Rafah. BBC's fact-checking unit, Verify, was analyzing footage of the Rafah incident when it identified a separate strike in nearby Khan Younis. Initially thought to be linked to the Rafah incident, BBC Verify geolocated the footage to Khan Younis, 4.5 km from the aid distribution site. The Khan Younis blast had not been announced by the IDF, which regularly publishes operational updates online. When BBC Verify approached the Israeli military, it admitted it had carried out an artillery strike and said the incident was the result of 'technical and operational errors.' Troops had fired toward a specific target but the artillery deviated and 'wrongfully hit the Mawasi area' in Khan Younis, the military said, without providing any evidence to support its claims. The blast took place in an area where displaced Palestinians had been sheltering. The footage showed bloodied bodies surrounded by dust clouds, BBC said. Women and children could be seen running and screaming as they watched injured people being carried away. The broadcaster emphasized the rarity of the Israeli military acknowledging errors. BBC Verify's analysis of its official Telegram account identified four previous instances where it admitted to mistakes or technical and operational errors related to the war in Gaza.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
