James Moran / Sep 2026
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
As Israel moves ahead with its controversial ‘E1’ settlement plans, threatening to split the West Bank in two and burying any hopes for a two-state solution, violent settlers run amok in the West Bank, and Gaza continues to languish in dire poverty and fear of yet more Israeli strikes. The last few days have seen a flurry of declarations by the EU, Member States and the wider international community condemning the actions of the Netanyahu government.
One such typical declaration is the statement issued by 10 EU Member States, the European Commission, the UK and others on 20 August, saying that Israel’s decision to publish tenders on the E1 settlement is ‘unacceptable’. It ‘urges’ Israel to immediately retract these plans and warns businesses which may potentially respond to the tenders that they risk ‘serious breaches’ of international law’.
Declaratory hot air
This is all well and good. But as with many declarations over the past few years, a significant aspect is missing: there’s no mention of actual retaliatory actions against the Israeli government should they ignore these fine words.
And let’s be honest, that’s exactly what the Netanyahu government will do, comforted by the continued unconditional backing of their protector in the White House.
And indeed, Israel’s Security Minister, Itmar Ben Gvir, once again fanned the political flames last week by issuing more genocidal remarks about the need to kill ‘30 to 40 Gazans’ a day and to set up ‘execution centres’ for those found guilty of ‘acts of terrorism’ under a highly dubious new Israeli law, applicable – of course – only to Palestinians.
With statements like that, one is bound to wonder why the EU and others are failing to follow through with concrete action.
Israeli elections
One reason for the EU’s inaction is of course the constant fear of American blowback. But a few Member States, including Italy and Germany, have been pushing a new argument: namely to avoid doing anything that might influence the outcome of the Israeli general election on 26 October.
The rather curious reasoning for this is that any action now would somehow embolden Netanyahu’s far-right coalition, turbocharging its ‘rally round the flag’ campaign tactic.
This is counterintuitive, to say the least. Speaking loudly while carrying no stick at all only confirms Netanyahu’s long held view that the EU and its partners are little more than paper tigers. He can spin the narrative to Israeli voters that this international impotence proves his hard-line position on the conflict has effectively neutered global opposition.
Be that as it may, there’s one notable exception to the declaratory hot air. Through Foreign Minister Helen McEntee, Ireland issued its own statement on 21 August, saying that ‘the EU must be prepared to respond decisively to actions that violate international law and further erode the prospects for peace. Ireland will continue to advocate for meaningful international action and for a peaceful, secure and prosperous future for Palestinians, Israelis and the wider Middle East’.
Will the EU’s ‘Gymnich’ discussions make a difference?
Ireland’s intervention is notable as it holds the current EU presidency and will host EU foreign ministers at the ‘Gymnich’ discussions on 1 and 2 September in Wicklow. While Dublin’s influence on the 27 is naturally limited, it will probably be able to insist on an in-depth discussion that should force participants to confront the EU’s shortcomings when it comes to its own fundamental values and commitment to international law.
A key part of this discussion should be to seriously consider the meaningful actions available to the EU, all of which have been on the table for some time. These include suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement, particularly the preferential trade provisions, covering some 30 % of Israel’s total foreign trade, sanctioning officials who support violent settlers (including at the political level) and completely banning trade with illegal settlements. On the latter, some Member States, notably Ireland and Spain, have already taken bilateral action.
It’s a moot point as to whether the Gymnich exchanges, should they take place along these lines, will spur Europe into actually taking such measures. But they’ll doubtlessly help to amplify public discussions, where calls for such action are becoming louder by the day, as public opinion across the continent swings overwhelmingly against the Netanyahu regime.
It might also make clear to the Israeli people just how isolated their country has become. While those Israelis advocating for peace may not be in the majority, most Israelis do care about how they’re viewed in Europe and the wider world, unlike their government. One can only hope that such sentiments will encourage them to vote for parties that at least seek to prioritise peace, rather than ‘might is right’.
One thing seems clear: if the ruling coalition, or a new version of it, is victorious, Israel is headed down a perilous track. Opinion shifts in Europe are one thing, but a similar shift has also been taking root in the US, including within Trump’s MAGA supporters.
In the wake of the Iran War, which many Americans view negatively, and inspired by the actions and words of the Israeli government, even many within the MAGA movement are seriously questioning whether it’s ‘America first’, or ‘Actually, it’s Israel first’. Support for the Palestinian cause has also reached record highs. The issue has become so prominent that it’ll definitely be a factor in the upcoming US mid-term elections.
Without full US support, even Israel, for all its military might, will be dangerously exposed, and no amount of bluster from Netanyahu will save him and his ilk from political and judicial oblivion.
The original article can be found on the CEPS website.
