‘Self-imposed irrelevance’: why the EU is failing to act on growing public criticism of Israel

The three countries are targeting the economic links that help Israeli settlements operate. The UK announced sweeping sanctions on trade with illegal settlements and condemned what it called ethnic cleansing by state-backed settler terrorists. France and Canada then joined Britain in pledging similar action.

The proposed restrictions have two parts. First, they would ban goods produced in illegal settlements. Second, they would impose sanctions on people or groups that facilitate settlement activity or profit from it. That could affect traders, companies, financiers, and other commercial partners connected to settlement goods.

The announcements marked a sharp change in UK policy towards Israel, but they have not produced a wider European response. EU diplomats hoped the move would galvanise other governments. So far, the 27-member bloc remains divided, with Germany and Italy among those blocking stronger collective measures.

Israeli settlements are civilian communities established by Israel in the West Bank, territory Palestinians seek for a future state. The article focuses on settlements in the occupied West Bank and describes them as illegal. Their legality matters because settlement expansion changes conditions on the ground while diplomatic efforts still discuss a two-state solution.

Under widely accepted interpretations of international humanitarian law, an occupying power must not transfer its civilian population into occupied territory. That is why most governments and international institutions regard Israeli settlements in the West Bank as unlawful. Israel disputes this legal interpretation, but the article presents the settlements as illegal.

The issue is not only legal. France and the Netherlands are increasingly critical of Israel’s plans for the vast E1 settlement. The article says E1 threatens to critically damage the two-state solution. European governments therefore face pressure to respond through trade restrictions, sanctions, or diplomatic action.

Criticism of Israel has become widespread among European publics. A Pew Research Center survey covering ten European countries found large majorities held negative opinions of Israel. Views worsened compared with the previous year, mostly after the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran, which created a new regional crisis and global economic shock.

The figures are especially striking in several large countries. Negative views reached 70% in Poland, 75% in Italy, and 73% in Germany. Five countries also boycotted this year’s Eurovision contest because Israel remained eligible despite its conduct in Gaza and rising West Bank violence.

The humanitarian toll is even larger. More than 74,000 people, including at least 21,200 children, have been killed in Gaza since Israel’s war began. The article also reports 1,400 Palestinians killed since a ceasefire declared a year ago. Gaza faces shortages, disease, unemployment, and economic collapse.

An EU ban would change the commercial rules for goods linked to Israeli settlements. Businesses across the bloc would need to identify settlement-produced goods, stop importing or selling them, and manage the legal and financial risks of non-compliance. Consumers would see fewer products or different suppliers, while companies could face higher sourcing and monitoring costs.

The key mechanism is economic exclusion. A large single market refusing settlement goods would reduce access to European buyers and make settlement-linked trade harder to finance, insure, transport, and distribute. Sanctions on facilitators or profiteers would extend pressure beyond the goods themselves, potentially affecting commercial partners and investors.

The effect on the settlement project would depend on enforcement and participation. A ban would not end construction by itself, but it could increase the political and economic cost of expansion. The article shows that France, Canada, and the UK support such restrictions, while the EU has not adopted them collectively.

Germany and Italy are pivotal because large member states carry major weight in EU decision-making. The article says both have been crucial in preventing the bloc from forming a weighted majority for trade sanctions and a ban on commerce with illegal settlements.

Their reasons differ somewhat. Germany and Austria are described as close allies of Israel for historical reasons. Italy is grouped with Czechia as ideologically aligned with Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration. The article also says Germany and Italy systematically block EU measures, according to more than 500 former officials and diplomats.

This opposition creates institutional paralysis. Other governments, including Spain and Ireland, want stronger scrutiny of Israel’s conduct, while France and the Netherlands are increasingly critical. But without enough support from Germany and Italy, the EU cannot agree on major collective measures. The result is a gap between growing public criticism and limited common policy.

The two-state solution depends on a future Palestinian state having connected territory in the West Bank. The proposed E1 settlement area is considered dangerous because building there could reshape the land between major Palestinian population areas and make territorial separation harder. The article describes the plan as vast and deeply controversial.

The central mechanism is territorial fragmentation. If settlement construction divides Palestinian areas or limits movement between them, a future Palestinian state could become less coherent and less viable. E1 is therefore treated not simply as another construction project, but as a development with wider consequences for borders and political geography.

France and the Netherlands are among the EU countries increasingly critical of the plan. Martin Konečný says the EU has a diplomatic role as Israel advances it, but sees no sign of action. The article suggests that continued inaction could allow the settlement project to further undermine the two-state framework.

EU treaties shape the bloc’s responsibility to uphold its values and meet its legal obligations. More than 500 former officials and diplomats said the EU was failing to meet treaty obligations over Gaza and the West Bank. This creates political pressure for the bloc to use tools available under its agreements and common foreign policy.

The EU-Israel association agreement is especially important because it governs a €68bn trade relationship and cooperation in research, the environment, and energy. Spain and Ireland first called for a review of whether Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war breached the agreement’s human-rights requirements. A review could provide a legal and diplomatic basis for changing cooperation, though the article does not report a final decision.

International law provides the wider framework for judging settlement activity and conduct in occupied territory. It generally prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied land. The EU may impose measures through its decision-making system, but member-state divisions, especially German and Italian opposition, have so far limited collective action.