On Israel’s war on Gaza, Europe is still divided and undecided

In stark contrast to the near-unanimous EU stance on Ukraine, Israel's actions in Gaza have fractured European politics and public opinion like few other issues, observes Pablo de la Serna in Spain's Público magazine. The quest for a common position remains elusive.

Israel launched a fresh phase of its Gaza campaign in early May, dubbed “Gideon's Chariots” – a biblical reference that speaks volumes, argues Spanish writer and journalist Jordi Amat in El País. The name evokes the Book of Judges tale where Gideon, divinely assisted, vanquished numerically superior foes, triggering their flight and displacement.

Though officially targeting Hamas, certain Israeli ministers have let slip the operation's genuine aim: Palestinian expulsion, Amat maintains. After warning civilians to evacuate, Israeli forces commenced bombardment of refugee camps and declared conquered territory would remain under their control. Amat contends that the resulting child famine is intended to transform Gaza into an uninhabitable hell and accelerate civilian displacement.

Responding to Israel's latest offensive the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, has initiated a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. This 2000 accord establishes a framework for political and economic cooperation, including a free trade zone. The review will focus on Article 2, which stipulates that relations between the parties must be founded on respect for human rights and democratic principles.

North-South split

As Marta Gallardo notes in La Razón, suspending the agreement would deal Israel a significant economic blow, given that the EU is its primary trading partner. Trade between the two reached nearly €43 billion in 2024. Such a move could also affect EU research and innovation projects involving Israeli academic institutions and companies. However, the initiative has secured the backing of only 17 member states at most.

The most vocal criticism of Israel's brutal campaign in Gaza has consistently come from Spain. As Miguel Gonzáles writes in El País, Madrid is advocating for an international coalition to end the Gaza blockade and impose sanctions on Israel. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, who has described the situation in Gaza as “an open wound in humanity,” is calling for the complete suspension of the EU agreement, an arms embargo, and individual sanctions – explicitly not ruling out targeting Netanyahu himself.

A striking north-south divide characterises European attitudes towards the Israel-Gaza conflict, reports Pablo de la Serna in Público. While 71% of Spaniards and 43% of Italians label Israel's actions as “genocide”, merely a third of French and German respondents concur. Germany stands uniquely pro-Israeli – the only country where antipathy towards Palestine exceeds that towards Israel. Experts consulted by de la Serna attribute this to the Holocaust's “damaged conscience” in northern nations, southern Europe's Arab world ties, and divergent geopolitical priorities.

Czech diplomacy out of step

Perhaps the best illustration of this polarisation within the EU is the stance and debate in the Czech Republic which, at a moment when even Israel's most faithful allies are contemplating sanctions, is considering becoming the very first member of the Twenty-Seven to move its embassy to Jerusalem. 

According to Reflex weekly commentator Oliver Adámek, the planned Senate hearing on relocating the Czech embassy to Jerusalem, with Prime Minister Petr Fiala (ODS, right) in attendance, represents “resolute support for an extremist government with open backers of terrorism, which the rest of the world is rightly distancing itself from”. Fiala and Orbán, Adámek argues, represent the last voices of Israeli radicals in Europe, with “Czech diplomacy having hit a wall but continuing to run”. 

As Iveta Křížová writes on the Seznam Zprávy platform, support for moving the Czech embassy to occupied Jerusalem enjoys backing not only from the current liberal-conservative coalition government, but also from the likely winner of this October's elections, Andrej Babiš's populist ANO, and the far-right SPD.

---

---

Though tentative criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza has begun to emerge in the Czech Republic, the public broadcaster Czech Television maintains an uncritical stance towards Israel, writes Jolana Humpálová in a commentary for Voxpot. She highlights remarks by Czech Television correspondent David Borek, who observed during a live broadcast that images from Gaza possess a certain “photogenicity” that “touches hearts and souls worldwide, while Israeli tanks do not touch people's hearts and souls”. 

Humpálová takes Borek to task for explaining the situation with “absolute certainty” of standing “on the right side of history”, while he seemingly accusing Palestinians of being “almost deliberately photogenic”. Saša Uhlová of the Alarm daily concurs with the criticism of media outlets, particularly the public broadcaster Czech Television. In her assessment, journalists who fail to properly inform the public are, alongside politicians who shape the state's official position, complicit in the genocide unfolding in Gaza through their unconditional defense of Israel.

Germany's Gaza blind spot

Similarly, Hanno Hauenstein, in a pointed commentary for Deutschlandfunk, criticises German media for their approach to the Gaza situation. While international outlets such as the BBC, the Guardian and Al-Jazeera provide comprehensive coverage of Israeli attacks and their consequences, Germany's main news programmes remain “conspicuously silent”, he argues.

When they do report on the crisis, they often employ passive language, offer fragmentary content or uncritically relay information from Israeli military sources. Hauenstein characterises this style of reporting as both political and an expression of repression. In his view, understandable concerns about reporting too critically on Israel's actions have paralysed much of German journalism. He criticises Germany, a country that prides itself on its historical responsibility, for turning a blind eye to events in Gaza and supporting Israel's war precisely when this responsibility is most needed. Many German editorial offices are also averting their gaze from the reality on the ground, Hanno Hauenstein contends, forcing German citizens who seek the truth about Gaza to turn to foreign media for information.

In a scathing Der Spiegel commentary, Juliane von Mittelstaedt excoriates Germany's position on the Gaza war as complicity in what she describes as Israeli violations of international law. While Israel blocks humanitarian aid, bombards civilians and plans Gaza's depopulation and occupation, Foreign Minister Wadephul offered only tepid criticism during his Jerusalem visit. 

Germany, alongside Hungary and Czech Republic, has blocked stronger EU positions and briefly suspended weapons exports only to later reaffirm them. Chancellor Merz's unconditional support for Netanyahu – even suggesting ways to circumvent an arrest warrant – represents a striking abdication of influence. 

Berlin's justification of “special responsibility for Israel's existence” is misapplied, argues von Mittelstaedt, as it should apply to the state itself rather than a government rejected by most Israelis.