Thomas Maddock / Jul 2026
The first meeting of the Palestine Donor Group, 20 November 2025. Photo: European Union, 2025
Brushing off accusations of double standards in foreign policy is a losing strategy for the EU. Better to engage with the criticism and course correct its policy.
In late June, the Vatican reportedly accused the EU of double standards in its condemnations of war. According to the Holy See, the EU condemns war when perpetrated by its geopolitical rivals, yet will overlook war when perpetrated by other states.
The rebuke was strikingly unflinching, but it was certainly not a novel criticism. Over the past few years, critics have accused the EU of overlooking Israel’s war and genocidal acts in Gaza, Israeli violence in the West Bank, Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, and the US-Israeli war in Iran. This contrasts with how the EU has sought to robustly condemn and sanction Russia’s war in Ukraine, hence the accusations of a double standard. That the Vatican is now voicing this grievance shows just how widely this view has spread, and how it is becoming a problem that Europeans can no longer ignore.
Why the EU should take double standard accusations seriously
Since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023, following Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attacks, the EU has failed to articulate a coherent response towards the Middle East. Even as the scale of Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on Palestinians became apparent, and a UN commission found Israel had committed genocidal acts in Gaza, internal divisions between member-states have resulted in a limited EU response. In September 2025, the European Commission proposed the suspension of trade concessions under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Yet even this measure failed to attract a supporting consensus from member-states, even if it was not outright voted down. EU leaders have criticised Israel and repeated joint statements signal continued commitment to a peaceful two-state solution; yet this rhetoric has not translated into a broader policy shift toward Israel, nor is it commensurate with the EU’s harder approach to condemning Russia.
Pushing back against the claim of a double standard, various rebuttals are offered by some in the EU. They argue that following Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attacks, as well as the various threats from the Iranian regime and Hezbollah in Lebanon, EU solidarity is justifiable towards Israel. They will argue that the EU does not have a double standard, pointing to the fact that the EU is the largest funder of the Palestinian Authority (PA) or the EU’s founding of the Palestine Donor Group, which aims to co-ordinate support for the Palestinian recovery. Or they will insist that the EU is not alone in having double standards in foreign policy, pointing to double standards in the human rights records or foreign policies of other countries, whether it is Türkiye, the Gulf states, China, or the US.
Yet none of these justifications address the fundamental problem: the EU’s continuing support for Israel is eroding its global influence in a way that is difficult to reverse. Lacking the military, financial, and technological firepower of other actors, the EU’s global role primarily hinges off its image as a promoter of international law, human rights, and peacebuilding. Sacrificing its voice on these issues therefore carries a higher cost for the EU than it would for other actors. Europeans need not wait to see what the consequences of this diminishing influence will be, as they are already manifesting. Germany’s failure to win a UN Security Council seat has been attributed by some to Germany’s closeness to Israel. Failure to restore EU credibility will carry costs beyond just criticisms from the Pope.
Refocusing the EU's Israel-Palestine Policy
Fixing the EU’s diplomatic approach requires learning from two recent missteps.
The first is the Palestine Donor Group, whose second meeting is due to take place on Monday 13 July. The EU founded this group with the aim of co-ordinating funding to Palestine’s reconstruction efforts. Rather than representing a paradigm shift in support to Palestinians, the Group largely replicates existing models for co-ordinating funding, particularly the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee. The European Commission sought US participation in the Group, yet no US representative attended its first meeting in November. Its uptake with Arab states has also been mixed, with the first meeting not attracting the attendance of higher-level officials from some states. For a meeting designed to demonstrate EU leadership on support to Palestine, it arguably demonstrated the EU’s limited reach.
A more fundamental challenge is that external financing is only part of the problem facing Palestinian recovery. Israel continues to withhold tax revenues from the PA. The EU has criticised Israel for this, but has avoided applying genuine political pressure, such as through suspending trade concessions under the Association Agreement or banning goods trade from Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Absent credible pressure applied on the Israeli government on this issue, the financing crisis will continue, irrespective of greater international funding co-ordination.
The second is the EU’s efforts to engage the Board of Peace, the initiative to oversee post-conflict Gaza. The Board’s shortcomings were apparent from the outset, with an ill-defined structure and objectives, and the expansive authority it extended to its chairman-for-life, US President Donald Trump. By its very nature and objectives, it clashed with UN-led initiatives to co-ordinate action on the Middle East peace process, even after the UN Security Council approved its mandate. The EU nonetheless initially sought a seat at the Board, viewing it as potentially lending some say on post-war Gaza governance. Trump has, however, shown little interest in accommodating European voices in the conflict and the Board’s structure meant it was unlikely to ever be a co-operative international process. The EU has shifted partially its approach. By sending Dubravka Šuica, the EU’s Mediterranean Commissioner as an observer, rather than Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as a participating member, the EU apparently hoped to avoid lending credibility to the Board, while also avoiding upsetting Trump by outright snubbing it.
Speaking to the European Parliament, Šuica suggested that the Palestine Donor Group could become the EU’s own Board of Peace, by expanding its scope to be a more international political body. Yet in reality, the EU currently lacks the level of geopolitical reach and diplomatic bandwidth to expand the Group to such a level. A better approach for the EU instead would be to focus efforts through existing structures like the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, distance itself from Trumpian efforts like the Board of Peace, and apply genuine pressure on Israel to follow international law.
The EU’s hard-won reputation on peacebuilding and human rights is at stake. The EU does have leverage it can deploy to pressure Israel to respect international law; what matters is the political will to apply that pressure. Suspension of trade concessions under the Association Agreement or banning trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank would be a potent political signal to Israel, especially as the EU is the largest trading partner of Israel. Furthermore, it would provide the clearest signal that the EU remains committed to international legal principles, regardless of who breaches them. There are signs that some member-states, particularly Germany, Hungary, and Italy, might be more open to banning trade with settlers; the Commission should back this measure.
The EU has already delayed the publication of its Middle East Strategy, owing to uncertainty around the war in Iran. The Commission is also looking to publish a Security Strategy, which will doubtless overlap with elements of its approach to the Middle East. The EU should use these exercises as an opportunity to recentre human rights to its foreign policy agenda; such an approach is not just the right thing to do, but it would also prevent a further degradation to the EU’s global standing.
