On Oct. 9, 2023, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant presented one of the first concrete policies that the State of Israel would follow in response to the atrocities of Oct. 7. “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant said in a video message.
This seemed like a natural first step in the campaign to conquer Gaza and destroy Hamas. However, the siege was not destined to survive its first interaction with the Western media.
Mere days after the horrors of Oct. 7, Western cameras turned to the “plight of the Palestinians,” and almost immediately, pressure from Washington and nearly every European capital turned on Jerusalem in an effort to force Israel to provide aid for the Gazans.
Ever since then, Israel has been engaged in a diplomatic dance, cutting and increasing aid with the tides of international pressure. This dance was not tied to realities on the ground in Gaza.
It was irrelevant that Hamas was stealing the majority of the aid. It was irrelevant that Gaza was importing more than 3,000 calories per day per person. It was irrelevant that siege warfare was a recognized and legitimate tactic under international law. It was irrelevant that Hamas was holding Israeli hostages.
In March 2024, the International Court of Justice in The Hague claimed that “famine is setting in, in Gaza.”
In August 2024, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell responded to calls from National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich to cut aid to Gaza by calling for E.U. sanctions on Israel.
“While the world pushes for a ceasefire in Gaza, Min. Ben Gvir calls for cutting fuel & aid to civilians. Like Min. Smotrich’s sinister statements, this is an incitement to war crimes. Sanctions must be on our EU agenda,” Borrell wrote in a post on X on Aug. 11.
This was but one of the many similar statements made by European officials since the start of the war.
The wave did not come
Considering this background, it was with extreme caution that the Prime Minister’s Office announced on March 2 that Israel was halting the import of most aid into Gaza as negotiations broke down over the second phase of the ceasefire with Hamas.
“With the end of phase one of the hostage deal, and in light of Hamas’s refusal to accept the Witkoff outline for continuing talks—to which Israel agreed—Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that, as of this morning, all entry of goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will cease. Israel will not allow a ceasefire without the release of our hostages,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. “If Hamas continues its refusal, there will be further consequences,” it added.
Although this did not include electricity or water, the transfer of almost all food, fuel construction material and other amenities into Gaza has ceased. The halt in aid came because Hamas refused to continue to exchange Israeli hostages for the release of imprisoned terrorists under the terms of the first phase of the January deal.
Israel braced itself for a wave of condemnations. However, unlike in the past, the wave did not come. The Arab states issued their usual statements, with Egypt and Qatar saying Israel is “starving children.” The U.N. claimed, three days after the reinstitution of the siege, that its Gaza agency would “run out of food in two weeks.”
But the response from Europe was muted, and the response from Washington was positive. The usual burst of condemnations did not materialize. A joint statement from Britain, France and Germany said they had “deep concern” over Israel’s decision and that Jerusalem “may be acting in violation of international law.”
However, the usual calls for sanctions and the never-ending media cycle were nowhere to be seen.
Why did Europe not react?
Several factors came together to produce the muted reaction from Europe; however, the policy shift mostly has to do with the new sheriff in Washington.
“When the U.S. is behind Israel, we see a very healthy respect from Europe, and they behave much more tamely. This response is a clear reaction to the friendship between Israel and the new administration,” Danny Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and former deputy foreign minister, told JNS.
“When the U.S. is critical of Israel, then the European countries will be even more so,” Ayalon added. The shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship is felt in Europe and the muted response is an early symptom of that shift, he explained.
Alan Baker, an expert on international law and a former Israeli ambassador to Canada, agrees.
“You have to consider the Trump effect. A lot of international media outlets, and organizations including the E.U., are hesitant to come down against Israel, knowing [President Donald] Trump’s position,” Baker said. “The British and the French are learning this. They are being very careful now because of Trump.”
An additional factor possibly contributing to the European reaction is the resurgence of right-wing parties and broad discontent surrounding high levels of Muslim immigration into Europe. While this process has been ongoing for many years, the European movement right received a tailwind after Trump’s electoral victory in November and solidified its position after last month’s German election, where the center-right Christian Democratic Union party won a broad mandate.
Germany is broadly considered the most dominant E.U. state, with the largest economy and population. The Federal Republic’s next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has been a staunch ally of Israel.
In one of his first declarations since the election, Merz invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Germany despite the International Criminal Court arrest warrant leveled against him.
“The Germans are now in a position to take a far more bold viewpoint on Israel, and not hide behind false statements,” Baker said.
“Germany is a real heavyweight in Europe and they see eye to eye with Israel on the threat of terror,” Ayalon said. “The combined weight of U.S. support and many players in Europe, including most importantly Germany, gives Israel a lot of diplomatic protection,” he added.
Eyes on Ukraine
Beyond ideological shifts and diplomatic considerations, experts believe there is also a more pragmatic explanation for the lack of a strong response to Israel’s aid freeze. Since Jan. 20, when Donald Trump assumed the U.S. presidency, the pace of breaking news has been explosive. The media cycle behind even the most extreme of events has gone on only a few hours before the next development has demanded the attention of press pundits.
Over the past several days, European news channels were fixed on the unprecedented meeting between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The altercation during their Feb. 28 Oval Office press conference sent European capitals into a panic and led to an inter-European conference two days later.
“The main performance in the news right now is what’s going on with Ukraine,” Baker explained. “This is attracting most of the attention from Europe and comparatively the situation in Israel is less dramatically important for them.”
Ayalon said that Ukraine was a factor but was not the primary cause for Europe’s reaction. “[Ukraine] could be part of the reason but in my view, the main cause is the solid support from America,” he said.
The final factor influencing the European reaction likely has more to do with psychology than politics. Over the past several months the world has been shocked at the images coming out of Gaza during the hostage release ceremonies. Images of crowds dancing over the coffins of children, emaciated men and mutilated women have all been a stark reminder for the world of the evil Israel is fighting. Stories of torture, starvation and humiliation echoed around the world, reminding many of the horrors of history’s darkest moments.
The active participation of Gazan “civilians” in the release ceremonies and in the taking and imprisonment of hostages did not resonate well with the narrative of the “plight of the Palestinians.”
In that context, the Gazans and Hamas may have used up a lot of their sympathy credit, leading to less enthusiasm in Europe to stand up in their defense.
“In the last few months, Hamas has been perceived as very cruel and ruthless. I think a growing body of opinion, both in the international public and in the media, has a reduced element of sympathy for Hamas and the Palestinians, because of what they have been doing and because of the stories that have been coming out,” Baker said.
{Reposted from JNS}
