TEHRAN – As the Gaza war reaches its most horrific crescendo, the last-minute diplomatic machinations and rhetorical condemnations of the European Union are being hailed in some quarters as a “watershed moment” in its relationship with Israel.

However, a closer look gives us a track record blighted by blatant hypocrisy, double standards, and an ongoing refusal to stand up for the very humanitarian values which the EU professes to uphold.

The EU’s unreserved backing for Israel in the opening months of the Gaza war, and its effective inaction as the humanitarian crisis enveloped the tiny strip of land, reveal the naked contradictions of European foreign policy.

The early months of the Gaza war

Right from the start of the war, the European Union's stance was clear: "We are with Israel". Immediately following the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and a number of top officials had offered Israel not only a political embrace but a symbolic one: Israeli flags fluttered outside of the European Commission and Parliament, and the Israeli national anthem was played in Brussels.

The European Council released a statement condemning Hamas “in the strongest possible terms,” showing no sign of calls for restraint or proportionality before flowing even from the European bloc’s senior offices.

This unconditional support was not merely symbolic. Several EU member states, such as Austria, suspended aid to Palestinian areas and echoed Israeli narratives without qualification. Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, while later critical of Israel’s siege tactics, joined other European officials justifying Israel’s barbarity as Israel’s “right to defend itself”.

Europe provided diplomatic cover for Israel’s military campaign and the devastating siege of Gaza.

Europe’s silence and complicity

As Israel's military actions in Gaza escalated and the humanitarian situation worsened, many felt that the European Union was slow to respond and inconsistent.

Despite clear evidence of serious breaches of humanitarian law and a rising death toll among Palestinians, leaders like Spain's Pedro Sanchez and Ireland's Leo Varadkar called for the EU to reconsider its Association Agreement with Israel back in February 2024, but the European Commission didn't act for over a year. 

This lack of action continued even when the blockade pushed Gaza to the brink of famine, with deaths exceeding 50,000. The UN's special rapporteur on Palestine suggested that the EU should cut ties with Israel to prevent more violence, but the EU was hesitant, citing the need for agreement among member countries.

As conditions continued to decline, the EU started to issue slightly more critical statements, but there was still no real action: humanitarian aid remained inconsistent, calls for a ceasefire were watered down, and even the EU's vice president admitted the response was “a big question mark.”

The “turning point”: Too little, too late

Only in May 2025, after 11 weeks of total aid blockade and more than 53,000 Palestinian deaths, the EU finally announced a formal review of its Association Agreement with Israel.

Despite being unprecedented, this action begs the challenging question: Why did it take so long? And considering the EU's history of putting trade and strategic interests ahead of human rights, what real impact will it have?

Supported by the majority of EU foreign ministers, the review is presented as a reaction to Israel's breach of Article 2 of the agreement regarding human rights. However, the truth is that preferential tariffs and economic ties are still largely in place, despite threats of "concrete actions" and potential suspension of trade privileges from European leaders.

One example of the symbolic nature of much of Europe's recent posturing is the United Kingdom's announcement that it would terminate new trade negotiations with Israel while maintaining its current trade agreements.

The recent episode of warning shots in Jenin aimed at a diplomatic delegation that included European officials is a paradigm of EU impotence. While Kaja Kallas, the current EU foreign policy chief, called the attack "unacceptable" with the demand for accountability, it is doubtful if the bloc is able to protect its diplomats, let alone the Palestinian civilians.

The incident sheds light on the limits of European influence and the reluctance of Israeli authorities to lose sleep over Europe's probable response, being mere statements and reviews rather than actual sanctions or a policy reversal.

Double standards and the erosion of moral authority

The EU’s response in Gaza differs dramatically from that to other challenging global crises, in particular Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. European leaders have invoked the “rules-based international order” and the sanctity of human rights in Ukraine, imposing sweeping sanctions on Russia and mustering unprecedented diplomatic pressure.

But when faced with Israel’s illegal actions in Gaza — actions that leading European politicians now concede may amount to genocide — the EU’s reaction has been muted and divided.

This double standard has not gone unnoticed by the global public. It must rise from its moral bankruptcy and set its own red lines for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza – lines that, as Josep Borrell rightly forewarned, would make clear the EU’s credibility as a proponent of international law – the same that it practices in Ukraine.

The belief that the West is hypocritical is fanning extremism internationally, undermining the EU’s soft power and corroding its influence.

EU facing critical test over Gaza 

The EU is facing a moment of truth as the humanitarian crisis worsens and the war in Gaza continues. It has so far demonstrated hypocrisy, inaction, and a failure to uphold its own declared principles.

Months of unwavering support for Israel and the practical inaction that permitted the disaster in Gaza to occur cannot be erased by the recent flurry of diplomatic activity—reviews, condemnations, and threats of "concrete actions." 

The EU runs the risk of further undermining its moral authority and international influence unless it is prepared to back up its rhetoric with concrete actions, such as suspending trade agreements, enforcing arms embargoes, and holding Israel responsible for transgressing international law.

The world is looking, and history will evaluate Europe based on its actions rather than its words.