State of disunion: Will Europe find a common voice on Gaza?

More than 5,000 Palestinians have lost their lives since Israel commenced its relentless onslaught on the 40km-long Gaza Strip following the Hamas attacks on 7 October. 

The bombing campaign intended to wipe out Hamas militants has hurt and killed civilians, decimated neighbourhoods and destroyed civilian infrastructure. 

Even the south of Gaza, where Palestinians have been told to move to, has not been spared. 

Many cannot leave Gaza City and other localities in the north of the territory simply because they are too old, disabled or hospitalised. And although humanitarian aid has trickled in over the past couple of days, this has been described by UN agencies as a drop in the ocean. The effectiveness of these basic supplies is also shackled by constant bombardments and preparations for a ground invasion by Israeli troops which would hinder any humanitarian efforts. 

The question facing EU leaders meeting in a summit on Thursday is whether the bloc should align itself with a call made by UN Secretary-general Antonio Guterres for a ceasefire or at least a "temporary pause". The latter is an approach favoured by Josep Borrell, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. 

Underlying this choice is a rift at both the institutional level and among member states. Some advocate unconditional support for Israel's right to defend itself, while others are more inclined to qualify this support, particularly concerning the issue of collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza. 

At the institutional level, there is a difference between the prudent approach advocated from the first days of the conflict by Borrell,  who immediately expressed concern about the humanitarian emergency in Gaza, and the more unconditional support given to Israel by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola, during their visit to Tel Aviv days after the 7 October attacks. 
One risk of  the latter approach is that it may give Israel the impression that its ongoing siege of Gaza also has the seal of approval of the EU. 

For while Israel does not seek the EU's green light for its actions, having its seal of approval helps legitimise its actions. At the member state level, it has been reported that France, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Slovenia, and Luxembourg have so far backed Borrell's call for a humanitarian pause during a meeting of foreign Ministers on Monday. 

Where Malta stands 

A press release issued by the Maltese foreign ministry after the meeting largely avoids the elephant in the room by not referring to the call for a pause in hostilities but suggests that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is a priority for the Maltese government.  

According to the statement, during the meeting, Ian Borg reiterated Malta's condemnation of the recent Hamas attacks against Israel while “underscoring Israel's right to security and self-defence in full respect of international law”. 

Borg also called for the immediate release of all hostages and the expedient delivery of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe and prevent the conflict from spilling over into the region. 

Borg also welcomed EU Commission's tripling of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and informed the council that Malta has also doubled its assistance to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

At a later UN Security Councill meeting, Malta called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and an independent investigation into the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital bombing.    

Malta had already supported a UN resolution, presented last week by Brazil and vetoed by the US, calling for a pause in hostilities in an indication that Malta is receptive to the call for a temporary halt in hostilities. 

This sentiment was articulated by Ireland's Foreign Minister Micheal Martin: "We understand Israel's need to deal with Hamas because this was an appalling attack... But the degree of suffering – innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering – it's not acceptable at all, and in our view, that's why we believe a humanitarian pause is required, at a minimum, to get aid and supplies in." 

On the other hand, Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Italy, among others, have been skeptical about the idea, arguing that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas. Awkwardly, Hungary's far-right government has been particularly close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky cast doubt on the feasibility of achieving a temporary ceasefire with the Islamist group in charge of Gaza. "There is a terrorist organization controlling Gaza, sending rockets every day, that perpetrated a barbarous attack on Israeli territory," he said. "So, the question is how such a ceasefire should be established. It needs to be established on both sides." 

Underlying the different approaches is the history of each member state and the collective guilt over the Holocaust, particularly in the part of Europe which was occupied by the Nazis. This explains why Germany is keen on offering unconditional support to Israel. The coalition makeup of different governments also impacts their stance, as is the case in Spain, where the left-wing Sumar pushes a more pro-Palestinian line.  Other factors weighing in on the approach of different member states are bilateral ties with Arab countries, different experiences with colonialism and the strength of public opinion, including a vocal and sizable Muslim/Arab community in some countries, increasingly appalled by the growing human cost of Israeli actions. 

Consensus may still be possible. Speaking to reporters at the end of the meeting, Borrell explained the difference between a ceasefire and a pause. A pause means "that something ceases temporarily but then continues, so it's, of course, a less ambitious objective than a ceasefire, which means a full agreement between the parties." 

One possible scenario could be tying a humanitarian pause to a release of hostages by Hamas. However, it remains to be seen whether the latter is willing to lose its most valuable bargaining chip. A more likely scenario is that Hamas would be willing to release more hostages while keeping some as insurance against a fully blown ground invasion.  This raises a moral dilemma of epic proportions. 

Does the EU matter? 

The European Union, in contrast to the United States of America, which provides money and weapons, has limited leverage over Israel's actions on the ground. In simple terms, Israel does not require the EU's approval for continuous bombardments and a possible ground assault, which could escalate the conflict into a broader regional one. 

The United States has, thus far, responded to the crisis through what has been described as "bear hug diplomacy," showering Israeli government officials with affection while adding words of caution, including a reminder of US experiences after 9/11, in hopes of tempering Israeli actions on the ground. The only known success of this approach has been the entry of aid convoys into Gaza. 

In this scenario, EU diplomacy is crucial in creating a space for dialogue between Western nations and moderate Arab nations to prevent an escalation of unpredictable proportions. Moreover, the EU has some leverage on the moribund Palestinian Authority through its funding. Yet offering more money to the Palestinians also sounds increasingly hollow in a situation where Israel regularly destroys infrastructure built using EU funds. 

In the absence of a more forceful stance towards Israel by the EU, it risks losing any regional influence it may still have. Moreover, this role could be taken up by Russia and China, who could use their newfound love for international law to criticize the West's double standards and further erode the global consensus on Ukraine. 

Unconditional support for Israel carries the risk of being perceived in the Arab world as an active accomplice in ongoing war crimes in Gaza, where the medieval siege is causing a significant human cost – something that provides ammunition for Western critics, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran. 

One fundamental question for the EU revolves around its core values and whether the collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza contradicts its commitment for international legality, which  the EU constantly invokes in dealing with rogue countries like Russia. And while history makes it hard for the EU to treat Israel as a rogue state despite repeated defiance of international law over the past decades.  

What individual EU member states do and say also has a strong impact. The nuances between different approaches of individual countries may be a strength in reaching out to both Israel and the Palestinians. 

While the EU can influence the approach of the US in their attempt to rally a broader coalition to support a traumatized Israel and thus rein it in, individual countries like Spain, Malta, and Ireland can push the EU to take more meaningful steps towards a more permanent solution based on the recognition of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. 

The EU has paid lip service to the notion of a two-state solution and the issue is often sidelined only to be discussed in the aftermath of despicable terror attacks. Hamas thrives in the long dark periods between one Israeli attack and the next. Ensuring that meaningful progress is made as soon as the dust settles is the only way to avoid another escalation in the near future. But in the meantime, the world must ensure that the present crisis does not grow into a fully-fledged regional war that risks destroying any prospect of a future. 

In this, the EU’s job is to set red lines for Israel's right to defend itself from terrorism. Otherwise, it may well take decades for the dust to settle again.