On May 16, 2024, the leaders of seven European countries—Spain, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and Slovenia—issued a joint statement urging Israel to negotiate in good faith to end its ongoing war of extermination against Gaza. The statement called for the immediate lifting of the blockade, rejected any plans for the forced displacement of Gaza’s residents, and vowed not to remain silent in the face of the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe. The leaders demanded unimpeded humanitarian aid delivery and expressed support for the efforts of UN agencies and relief organisations, foremost among them UNRWA. They also called for a political track that would end the aggression and pave the way for a two-state solution.
Just three days later, leaders from the UK, France, and Canada issued a separate statement warning that they would take concrete measures if Israel failed to halt its military assault. Around the same time, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that Israeli airstrikes were no longer justified, while Italy’s Prime Minister acknowledged that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza had become indefensible. Furthermore, a joint international conference chaired by France and Saudi Arabia was announced for June 17 in New York, aiming to discuss the establishment of a Palestinian state. French President Emmanuel Macron remarked that recognising a Palestinian state was not merely a moral duty but a political necessity.
While such positions are welcome, they prompt an unavoidable question: Why now? Why have these countries—some of which actively provide military, intelligence, political, and even legal support to Israel—suddenly altered their tone? What has changed between the death of 53,000 Palestinians and the death of 54,000 that triggered this shift? These same states had justified the bombing of homes, markets, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure under the pretext of Israel’s “right to self-defense.” Why the sudden concern?
Trade Deficits and Strategic Realignments
While countries like Spain, Norway, Ireland, Malta, and Slovenia had previously condemned Israeli atrocities in Gaza, the partial shift in stance by the UK, Germany, Italy, and France seems less rooted in humanitarian values and more in economic calculations.
Observers point to the timing of these statements, noting their proximity to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s tour of the Gulf, which resulted in multi-trillion-dollar investment pledges and multi-billion-dollar deals with the United States. Naturally, these Gulf investments come at the expense of similar investments in Europe—affecting banks, corporations, and employment in those nations.
This interpretation is supported by the declining trend in Arab imports from the European Union. Data from the Arab Monetary Fund shows that the EU’s share of Arab imports dropped from over 40% in 2000 to roughly a third over the next eight years, falling below 30% by 2009 and reaching just 19.6% by 2023—largely due to increased trade with China.
Most of the European states that issued these recent statements are grappling with persistent trade deficits:
-
- The UK: $303 billion
-
- France: $110 billion
-
- Spain: $48 billion
-
- Luxembourg: $9 billion
-
- Canada: $5.3 billion
-
- Malta and Slovenia: $5 billion each
Such financial strains may explain the motivation to recalibrate foreign policy positions that risk alienating the Arab and Muslim world.
Boycotts, Tourism Declines, and Fear of Fallout
A growing number of analysts believe that popular Arab and Islamic boycotts of European products, coupled with a decline in high-spending tourism from the Middle East, have exerted economic pressure. Western Europe’s tourism sector relies heavily on visitors from the Gulf, who significantly outspend tourists from Eastern Europe.
There is also unease surrounding the potential for mass displacement of Gazans into Libya or Sudan, which could trigger irregular migration waves to Europe. Many displaced Palestinians would likely refuse to remain in those host countries, setting off alarms in European capitals already struggling with migration politics.
Moreover, there are security concerns. Authorities fear that continued support for Israel could provoke retaliatory acts by sympathisers in Europe—be they European citizens or migrants—similar to previous vehicular attacks, stabbings, and shootings witnessed across European and American cities. Such risks threaten domestic stability, social cohesion, and tourism.
Ukraine, American Apathy, and Military Spending
Some analysts link the shift in European rhetoric to changes in the U.S. position on Ukraine. With Washington demanding compensation for previous military aid—secured through a recent rare-earth minerals agreement with Kyiv—Europe finds itself needing to step up its military spending and take on greater responsibility for Ukraine’s defence. This is particularly true after Trump publicly pressured NATO allies to “protect themselves” and in light of his support for ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia, a position he advanced during Turkey-brokered negotiations that Putin ultimately snubbed.
The emerging multipolar order, shaped by Russia’s assertiveness and the West’s internal contradictions, may be pushing European leaders to balance their international commitments—particularly as they prepare for the possibility of U.S. disengagement under a second Trump term.
Tactical Statements, Minimal Action
Another theory suggests that Trump may have given Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a deadline—possibly the end of May—to crush Palestinian resistance, after which the U.S. would intervene to end the war and redirect focus to other global crises. In this scenario, some European leaders may have issued their recent statements simply to secure political cover and moral legitimacy in the event that the war ends. These statements allow them to say to their people, their parliaments, human rights activists, and the Arab-Muslim world that they “stood against the war.”
Certainly, grassroots activism across Europe has played a role. Protests, petitions, and public pressure from social media influencers and advocacy networks have forced some European governments to at least acknowledge the crisis. Symbolic gestures have included:
-
- Catalonia halting external representation in Tel Aviv
-
- Barcelona suspending ties with Israel
-
- Local leaders in two Italian provinces calling for a severance of relations with Tel Aviv
-
- A resurgence of Palestinian solidarity encampments at the University of Cambridge
-
- Pro-Palestinian displays during U.S. university graduation ceremonies
-
- Sympathy statements in multiple European parliaments
Yet, despite these symbolic shifts, the reality remains far from adequate.
From Words to Action: What Must Be Done
Even if around nine European nations have softened their stance, the EU consists of 27 member states—many of which continue to fully back Israel despite its ongoing war crimes.
Even those countries that issued critical statements have not ceased trade or diplomatic relations with Israel. Many still supply arms, intelligence, and political cover to the occupation. So far, their “new” positions have not translated into concrete measures—such as facilitating humanitarian aid, opening border crossings, or suspending military cooperation.
This is particularly troubling considering that the European Union is a party to the Rafah border crossing agreement. If the EU truly opposes the genocide in Gaza, it must take immediate, tangible steps to halt it—not merely issue statements for public relations purposes.
