logo
In the face of Gaza's open wound the EU's fractured conscience is finally emerging

In the face of Gaza's open wound the EU's fractured conscience is finally emerging

Mail & Guardian2 days ago

Injured children arrive at Nasser Hospital. in Gaza. Photo:Nearly 19 months into Israel's war on Gaza, the edifice of European moral clarity is beginning to show hairline cracks. What was once whispered in think-tank corridors is now being aired —- cautiously — in parliamentary chambers and diplomatic communiqués. The recent pronouncements by the European Union, United Kingdom, France and Canada mark an inflection point: not quite a reckoning, but certainly an uncomfortable pause.
The European Union, Israel's largest trading partner, made waves last week by signalling its intent to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Specifically, Article 2 — that lofty clause which predicates the agreement on 'respect for human rights and democratic principles' — has been pulled out of the drawer and dusted off.
The sudden interest in legal texts long filed under 'irrelevant' is telling. Europe's political class may not have grown a spine, but it is beginning to sense that complicity comes with a cost.
In synchrony, a trilateral statement from the UK, France and Canada condemned the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza as 'intolerable', warning that Israel risked breaching international humanitarian law. The language — typically calibrated to offend no one — was startlingly unambiguous: 'We will not stand by while the Netanyahu government pursues these egregious actions.' The promised 'concrete actions' remain undefined, but the threat was unmistakable.
Benjamin Netanyahu responded with familiar belligerence. To question Israeli conduct, he thundered, was to side with 'rapists, baby killers and kidnappers'. To ask for restraint was, in his view, to advocate for Hamas. The rhetorical fusillade was designed to silence dissent — and perhaps to distract from an inconvenient arithmetic: since October 2023, Israeli assaults have killed more than 54,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them women and children.
The vast majority of hostages taken during Hamas's 7 October — itself a horrific breach of international norms — have either been released or have died.
Europe's dalliance with moral high ground found an unusual champion this week in Madrid. At a summit attended by European and Arab states, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares called for an arms embargo against Israel and sanctions on those intent on 'ruining the two-state solution forever'.
Gaza, he declared, had become humanity's 'open wound', and silence amounted to complicity.
That silence is now being broken not only by politicians but also by civil society. In Britain, more than 800 lawyers, judges, and legal scholars issued a letter condemning what they described as the 'worsening catastrophe' in the occupied territories. They urged their government to fulfill its legal obligation to 'prevent and punish genocide' and ensure adherence to humanitarian law.
Among the signatories was Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill of Oxford, who minced no words. Israel's actions, he said, were 'blatantly in disregard of international law' and could no longer be brushed aside. His suggestion — to impose visa restrictions on all Israeli citizens, given the country's system of universal conscription — will doubtless be dismissed in polite circles as too radical. Yet it reflects a growing discomfort with business-as-usual diplomacy.
The Israeli government's standard defence — conflating any criticism of its actions with antisemitism — is beginning to wear thin. Even Jewish voices of conscience are now accusing their state of genocidal intent. On Wednesday, a group of 380 artists, musicians and intellectuals issued a searing indictment: 'We refuse to be a public of bystander-approvers,' they wrote, calling for an immediate ceasefire.
The weight of their words was echoed by more than 30 United Nations special rapporteurs and human rights experts, who described Israel's actions as 'merciless manifestations of the desecration of human life'.
While diplomats in New York quibble over the definition of genocide, Israeli bombs continue to fall. On 18 March alone, 600 Palestinians were reportedly killed — 400 of them children. Euphemisms are no longer an option.
What of the British response? Thus far, it has been cautiously symbolic. Sanctions have been imposed on a handful of West Bank settler leaders and a few fringe organisations. Asset freezes and travel bans make for strong headlines but accomplish little when those targeted have no discernible presence in the UK.
Michael O'Kane, a sanctions expert, was blunt: 'It is very unlikely that any of those sanctioned actually have assets in the UK.' Still, he insists, these actions serve as a signal — a diplomatic red card, even if not backed by enforcement.
More consequential measures may yet follow. There is growing pressure for targeted sanctions on key members of Netanyahu's cabinet — notably National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, both of whom have made incendiary, openly genocidal statements.
The UK has also suspended several arms export licenses, though hundreds remain in place. A court case brought by the Palestinian group Al-Haq could force a more thorough review, especially concerning components for F-35 fighter jets used in Gaza.
In court, the government's legal defence rests on the argument that 'no evidence has been seen that Israel is deliberately targeting civilian women or children'. Yet, as Al-Haq's counsel Raza Husain KC pointed out, the scale and tone of Israel's onslaught — reinforced by dehumanising rhetoric from senior Israeli officials — tells another story. 'Acts of annihilation', he argued, have been accompanied by 'celebratory statements' at the highest levels of government.
Whether any of this leads to a concrete shift in European policy is unknown. But there is momentum behind the push for an international conference, co-sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, to be held at the UN in June. Its stated goal: to revive the prospect of a Palestinian state and implement 'irreversible steps' toward that end.
For decades, Europe has played the part of the conflicted observer — offering rhetorical support for Palestinian rights while arming and trading with the very government that negates them. Now, with Gaza in ruins and Israel increasingly isolated on the world stage, that charade may finally be coming undone.
The road ahead is treacherous, and cynicism remains warranted. But for the first time in a long time, the possibility of a principled European response to Israeli impunity — however belated, however incomplete — is on the table. The question is not whether Europe will act. It is whether it can afford not to.
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New Europe push to curb children's social media use
New Europe push to curb children's social media use

eNCA

time17 hours ago

  • eNCA

New Europe push to curb children's social media use

BRUSSELS - From dangerous diet tips to disinformation, cyberbullying to hate speech, the glut of online content harmful to children grows every day. But several European countries have had enough and now want to limit minors' access to social media. The European Union already has some of the world's most stringent digital rules to rein in Big Tech, with multiple probes ongoing into how platforms protect children -- or not. There are now demands for the EU to go further as a rising body of evidence shows the negative effects of social media on children's mental and physical health. Backed by France and Spain, Greece has spearheaded a proposal for how the EU should limit children's use of online platforms as fears mount over their addictive nature. They will present the plan on Friday to EU counterparts in Luxembourg "so that Europe can take the appropriate action as soon as possible", Greek Digital Minister Dimitris Papastergiou said. The proposal includes setting an age of digital adulthood across the 27-country EU, meaning children will not be able to access social media without parental consent. Since the proposal was published last month, other countries have expressed support including Cyprus and Denmark -- which takes over the rotating EU presidency in July. Danish officials say the issue will be a priority during their six-month presidency. France has led the way in cracking down on platforms, passing a 2023 law requiring them to obtain parental consent for users under the age of 15. But the measure has not received the EU green light it needs to come into force. France also gradually introduced requirements this year for all adult websites to have users confirm their age to prevent children accessing porn -- with three major platforms going dark this week in anger over the move. Also under pressure from the French government, TikTok on Sunday banned the "#SkinnyTok" hashtag, part of a trend promoting extreme thinness on the platform. - Real age verification - Greece says its aim is to protect children from the risks of excessive internet use. The proposal does not say at what age digital adulthood should begin but Papastergiou said platforms should know users' real ages "so as not to serve inappropriate content to minors". France, Greece and Spain expressed concern about the algorithmic design of digital platforms increasing children's exposure to addictive and harmful content -- with the risk of worsening anxiety, depression and self-esteem issues. The proposal also blames excessive screen time at a young age for hindering the development of minors' critical and relationship skills. They demand "an EU-wide application that supports parental control mechanisms, allows for proper age verification and limits the use of certain applications by minors". The goal would be for devices such as smartphones to have in-built age verification. The European Commission, the EU's digital watchdog, wants to launch an age-verification app next month, insisting it can be done without disclosing personal details. The EU last month published draft guidelines for platforms to protect minors, to be finalised once a public consultation ends this month, including setting children's accounts to private by default, and making it easier to block and mute users. Those guidelines are non-binding, but the bloc is clamping down in other ways. - EU investigations - It is currently investigating Meta's Facebook and Instagram, and TikTok under its mammoth content moderation law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), fearing the platforms are failing to do enough to prevent children from accessing harmful content. In the Meta probe, the EU fears the platform's age-verification tools may not be effective. And last week, it launched an investigation into four pornographic platforms over suspicions they are failing to stop children accessing adult content. Separately, the EU has been in long-running negotiations on a law to combat child sexual abuse material, but the proposal has been mired in uncertainty, with worries from some countries that it would allow authorities to access encrypted communications. The legal proposal has pitted proponents of privacy against those working to protect children -- and despite repeated attempts, it has failed to get EU states' approval.

Trump administration imposes sanctions on four ICC judges
Trump administration imposes sanctions on four ICC judges

TimesLIVE

time20 hours ago

  • TimesLIVE

Trump administration imposes sanctions on four ICC judges

ICC judges also issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, former Israeli defence chief Yoav Gallant and Hamas leader Ibrahim Al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. Alapini Gansou and Hohler ruled to authorise the arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant, Rubio said. The move deepens the administration's animosity toward the court. During the first Trump administration in 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan. The measures also follow a January vote at the US House of Representatives to punish the ICC in protest over its Netanyahu arrest warrant. The move underscored strong support among Trump's fellow Republicans for Israel's government. The measures triggered uproar among human-rights advocates. Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said the punitive measures were a 'flagrant attack on the rule of law at the same time as President Trump is working to undercut it at home'. Sanctions severely hamper individuals' abilities to carry out even routine financial transactions as any banks with ties to the US, or that conduct transactions in dollars, are expected to have to comply with the restrictions. But the treasury department also issued general licences, including one allowing the wind-down of any existing transactions involving those targeted on Thursday until July 8, as long as any payment to them is made to a blocked, interest-bearing account located in the US. The new sanctions come at a difficult time for the ICC, which is already reeling from earlier US sanctions against its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who last month stepped aside temporarily amid a UN investigation into his alleged sexual misconduct. The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the UN Security Council. The US, China, Russia and Israel are not members. It has high-profile war crimes investigations under way into the Israel-Hamas conflict and Russia's war in Ukraine as well as in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, Venezuela and Afghanistan. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin on suspicion of deporting children from Ukraine, and for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Neither country is a member of the court and both deny the accusations and reject ICC jurisdiction.

EXPLAINER-What is the International Criminal Court?
EXPLAINER-What is the International Criminal Court?

Daily Maverick

time21 hours ago

  • Daily Maverick

EXPLAINER-What is the International Criminal Court?

THE HAGUE, June 5 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday imposed sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court, an unprecedented retaliation over the tribunal's work on issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Here are some facts about the court: WHEN WAS THE ICC SET UP AND WHY? The court was established in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression when member states are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. It can prosecute crimes committed by nationals of member states or on the territory of member states by other actors. It has 125 member states. The court's budget for 2025 is about 195 million euros ($202 million). WHAT IS THE ICC INVESTIGATING? The ICC is conducting investigations from the Palestinian territories to Ukraine and African states such as Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo and Kenya, to Venezuela in Latin America and Myanmar and the Philippines in Asia. It says there have been 32 cases before the court, with some having more than one suspect. ICC judges have issued at least 60 arrest warrants. HOW MANY PEOPLE HAS THE COURT CONVICTED? ICC judges have issued 11 convictions and four acquittals. Twenty-one people have been held in the ICC detention centre in The Hague and have appeared before the court, and 31 people remain at large. Charges have been dropped against seven people due to their deaths. Of the 11 convictions, only six have been for the court's core crimes of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The others were for crimes such as witness tampering. The six convicted men were all African militia leaders from Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Uganda. Terms ranged from nine to 30 years in prison. The maximum possible term is life imprisonment. WHO IS ON THE COURT'S ARREST WARRANT LIST? Former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested on March 11 on a warrant from the ICC. Prosecutors accuse him of forming and arming death squads held responsible for the killing of thousands of perceived drug users and dealers during his rule. Duterte has said he takes full responsibility for the 'war on drugs' as he braces for the legal battle. Other notable ICC suspects are Netanyahu, who is accused of being criminally responsible for acts including murder, persecution and using starvation as a weapon of war in the Gaza conflict, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, accused of the war crime of illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine. Both Israel and Russia have repeatedly denied that their forces have committed atrocities in Gaza and Ukraine respectively and have argued the ICC has no jurisdiction over them. When it issued the warrant for Netanyahu, the ICC also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, whose death was confirmed after the warrant was issued. The ICC prosecutor has also requested arrest warrants for senior Afghan and Myanmar leaders, but those have not been officially approved by judges. WHICH COUNTRIES ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE ICC? Although the court is supported by many United Nations members and the European Union, other countries such as the United States, China and Russia are not members, arguing the ICC could be used for politically motivated prosecutions. Myanmar is not a member of the court, but in 2018 and 2019 judges ruled the court had jurisdiction over alleged cross-border crimes that partially took place in neighbouring ICC member Bangladesh, such as deportation and persecution, and said prosecutors could open a formal investigation. Israel is not a member and does not recognise its jurisdiction, but the Palestinian territories were admitted as an ICC member state in 2015. This, together with a ruling by judges, means the court can look at potential war crimes carried out by Hamas fighters in Israel and by Israelis in the Gaza Strip. The Philippines is not currently a member of the ICC but was between 2011 and 2019, when the unilateral withdrawal by Duterte became final. Under the court's founding 1998 Rome Statute, even if a state withdraws as a member it retains jurisdiction over crimes within its jurisdiction committed during the membership period. In February 2025, Trump authorised economic and travel sanctions targeting people who work on International Criminal Court investigations of U.S. citizens or U.S. allies such as Israel. Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan has so far been the only ICC staff member targeted by sanctions, which are set to go into force on April 7.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store