EU welcomes ties with Israel’s next government as Palestinians remain under apartheid in the West Bank

The European Union said it looked forward to engaging with Israel’s next government. It linked that cooperation to a long-standing relationship and what it called shared democratic principles and common values. This matters because the EU is presenting its relationship with Israel as compatible with its stated commitment to democracy.

An EU foreign affairs spokesman, Anouar El Anouni, told reporters that the bloc would maintain a “frank and open dialogue” with the incoming administration. The wording signals continued diplomatic engagement rather than a break or immediate punishment. It also places democratic principles at the center of the EU’s public explanation.

The statement came while Palestinians in the occupied West Bank remained under Israeli military rule. That creates a clear tension between the EU’s language about shared democratic values and the unequal political reality described in the article. The EU’s approach suggests cooperation will continue, while criticism of the occupation remains part of the wider debate.

The West Bank is a landlocked territory east of Israel and west of Jordan. Palestinians regard it as part of the territory of a future independent state. Israel captured it from Jordan during the 1967 war. The word “occupied” refers to this continuing military control under international law, though Israel disputes some legal descriptions.

Military rule means Israeli authorities retain decisive power over security, movement, land access, and many aspects of daily life. Palestinians generally cannot vote in Israeli national elections, even though Israel controls much of the territory and its security environment. Israeli settlements and military installations also exist there, creating different legal and political systems for different populations.

The article highlights this arrangement by describing Palestinians as living under Israeli military rule and apartheid. The issue matters because the EU is offering cooperation with Israel while this unequal system continues. The future depends on whether negotiations, political change, or international pressure can produce equal rights or Palestinian self-government.

The West Bank is a relatively small territory, covering about 5,655 square kilometres. Roughly three million Palestinians live there. Around 500,000 Israeli settlers also live in settlements across the territory, excluding or treating East Jerusalem separately in many counts. These figures show that the area contains large, closely connected populations under different political systems.

The key mechanism is territorial control. Israel controls the West Bank’s external security environment and maintains military authority over Palestinians, while settlers are generally governed through Israel’s civilian legal system. Palestinian population figures include residents of cities, towns, refugee camps, and rural communities. Settlement figures depend on the boundaries and time period used by researchers.

The scale makes the issue more than a local dispute over isolated communities. Millions of Palestinians and hundreds of thousands of settlers live in the same territory. Population growth, settlement expansion, land access, and movement restrictions can shape any future agreement. Exact totals change over time, so reputable sources may report somewhat different numbers.

Israel took control of the West Bank from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War. Before 1967, Jordan controlled the territory, while Palestinians had no independent state there. After the war, Israel established military rule. The international community has generally treated the West Bank as occupied territory, while Israel contests aspects of that legal framework.

Control continued through a combination of security policy, settlement construction, and political arrangements. The 1990s Oslo agreements gave the Palestinian Authority limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank, but Israel retained major security powers and overall control in other areas. Israeli governments have argued that continued military presence is needed to prevent attacks and protect citizens.

Peace negotiations have repeatedly failed to resolve borders, Jerusalem, settlements, security, and Palestinian statehood. Israeli and Palestinian political divisions also weakened the prospects for a final agreement. As a result, temporary arrangements became long-term realities. The occupation has lasted decades, while settlement expansion and competing claims continue to make a two-state agreement harder.

Apartheid is an international crime involving systematic domination and oppression by one racial or ethnic group over another. The term originally described South Africa’s former system of legalized racial separation. In law, it concerns a pattern of institutional power, not merely the existence of separate communities or unequal outcomes.

Human-rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem have applied the term to Israel’s overall system of rule over Palestinians. They point to different laws, courts, movement rules, land policies, and political rights for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis, especially when comparing Israel and the occupied territories. Their reports argue that these policies serve sustained domination.

Israel rejects the apartheid label and says the comparison is false and politically motivated. The classification remains strongly disputed by governments, lawyers, and scholars. The article uses the term while describing Palestinians in the West Bank as under Israeli military rule. The debate matters because the label can influence diplomacy, legal proceedings, sanctions, and public pressure.

EU cooperation can affect diplomacy by signaling that Israel remains an accepted and important partner. Regular dialogue can give the EU access to Israeli leaders and preserve channels for discussing Palestinian rights, security, and a future settlement. It can also reassure Israel that its relationship with Europe will continue after an election.

Trade and institutional cooperation may bring practical benefits, including stable commercial relations, research links, and political coordination. The EU could use those ties as leverage by conditioning benefits on steps such as ending settlement expansion, protecting rights, or allowing greater Palestinian self-rule. Alternatively, cooperation without conditions may reduce the cost of maintaining the occupation.

The article says the EU will engage on the basis of democratic principles while Palestinians remain under Israeli military rule. That contrast makes the policy politically significant. Continued dialogue may support diplomacy, but it may also blunt international pressure. The eventual impact depends on whether the EU pairs engagement with monitoring, public criticism, or concrete consequences.

A country can hold competitive elections and protect political rights for its citizens while denying those rights to another population it controls. Democracy describes how power is allocated among a defined citizenry. It does not automatically mean that every person affected by the state’s decisions can vote or share equal legal status.

In Israel, citizens vote in national elections and participate in the country’s political institutions. Palestinians in the West Bank generally do not vote in those elections, even though Israeli authorities retain major powers over security, land, and movement there. This creates separate political and legal experiences within the same area of effective control.

The article captures this tension by pairing the EU’s reference to democratic principles with its description of Palestinians under Israeli military rule. Supporters of Israel’s democratic characterization focus on citizen institutions. Critics argue that control over non-citizens must also be judged. The unresolved question is whether democracy should be measured only inside recognized borders or across all people subject to state power.