Upholding peace and governance: Europe’s responsibility in Israel and Palestine 

Europe faces a pivotal moment in Israel and Palestine. In these thought-provoking contributions, the authors argue that Europe must act decisively – using its expertise, leverage and institutional capacity to confront illegal settlements, uphold international law and address Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. They call for Europe to support Palestinian governance and multilateral frameworks to achieve lasting peace.

Yael Patir                                                                               

Former chief of Staff to Israel’s Minister for Regional Cooperation, Director of J Street Israel and Israel Co-Director of the Palestinian Israeli Peace NGO Forum

The EU faces a structural challenge in its foreign policy: the unanimity requirement produces a ‘consensus trap’ that slows action and allows local dynamics to outpace European decision-making. Israel has grown adept at exploiting these gaps. Yet within the EU institutions and civil society lies a reservoir of analytical depth, policy expertise and implementation capacity that is often more sophisticated than its political machinery. This internal strength can become Europe’s comparative advantage – providing the strategic infrastructure, policy detail, and continuity that current U.S.-led initiatives frequently lack.

A second challenge is the widening trust gap. Israeli institutions and much of the public view the EU with suspicion – 67% see it as a rival rather than a partner. Traditional European tools such as warnings, labelling, or threats of sanctions have had limited impact. What could shift Israeli behaviour is a calibrated mix of credible sticks and meaningful incentives: conditioning aspects of political and economic engagement on Israeli restraint in particularly sensitive areas (annexation steps, E1, PA cooperation, humanitarian access), while simultaneously offering substantial strategic benefits for compliance. As recent history shows, leverage works only when it is trusted, consistent, and tied to clear objectives.

To use this leverage effectively, Europe must better understand and engage Israel’s mainstream – the public that rejects messianic extremism yet remains deeply security-conscious. This majority neither believes the conflict can be “managed” indefinitely nor embraces simplistic narratives about its resolution. It is, however, rarely represented in international discussions. Europe should widen its engagement beyond activists and elites to include this determinative centre.

Finally, the aftermath of the recent regional war demands a shift from bilateralism to multilateral architectures. Europe should position itself as a stakeholder, not just a donor, in shaping Gaza’s future – promoting Euro-Arab frameworks that link funding, governance, and legitimacy, and integrating Gaza into broader regional economic networks. Joining the emerging International Peace Board with political weight would signal that Europe seeks to shape outcomes, not merely comment on them.

George Zeidan                                                                           

Country Representative of The Carter Center in Jerusalem

The European Union cannot credibly support a lasting ceasefire and a two-state solution while easing pressure on a government that continues to reject full withdrawal from Gaza, violates ceasefire terms, expands settlements in the West Bank and denies Palestinians the right to self-determination. Israeli elections in 2026 present an important opportunity for Europe to help shape the political environment in Israel emphasising peace, accountability and respect for international norms.

Israeli opposition parties – who are expected to present an alternative to the current government coalition – joined last week in passing a bill that effectively annexes the occupied West Bank, further degrading the already moribund political horizon. Europe must therefore ensure that its pressure remains sustained and tangible not only at the level of government but also within Israeli public opinion.

The EU holds significant influence over political discourse and should leverage it to promote accountability. This is the only viable way to support an influential political opening, clarify distinctions within the Israeli political spectrum, and encourage all parties to commit to a genuine vision of peace. Europe must maintain and intensify its pressure as Israel’s most important partner in trade, travel and tourism, and technology.  At the same time, Europe must continue supporting Palestinian national consensus-building and initiatives that strengthen governance, legitimacy and the prospects for a sustainable political resolution.

Past assumptions that positive incentives alone would advance conflict resolution in Israel have not produced the intended results. For instance, even when the Palestinian Authority reformed its prisoner payment programme, the Israeli Knesset voted overwhelmingly against the establishment of a Palestinian state. Moving forward, Europe should prioritise clear disincentives for violations of international law, ensuring that respect for these norms remains at the core of its strategy.

A consistent and responsible policy toward the West Bank annexation would include prohibiting trade with products originating from illegal Israeli settlements – a measure already under discussion or implementation in countries such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia. Denmark, currently holding the EU Council presidency, must help lead this discussion. Where EU unanimity rules prevent collective action, member states should adopt national measures in alignment with international law.

European policymakers are well aware of the tools at their disposal, and their use in Ukraine demonstrates their potential impact. The key distinction is how far the EU is willing to go to implement its commitments under international law and diverge from an agenda set in Washington, D.C.

Zaha Hassan

Senior Fellow, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The international momentum that grew in support of a rights-respecting future for Palestinians and Israelis following the July 2024 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion and the New York Declaration in 2025 has been derailed by US President Donald Trump’s “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict.” While the ICJ and the Declaration called for support for Palestinian self-determination and an end to Israeli occupation, the Trump plan would place Palestine’s future in the hands of foreign actors working in partnership with Israel, the occupying power.

Thus far, the Trump plan has reduced violence in Gaza but it has not ended what the UN Commission of Inquiry determined to be a genocide there. Israel’s bombardment continues, humanitarian aid is limited to only 28% of what is needed, and the new ‘yellow line’ where Israeli troops are positioned means 58% of Gaza may be permanently off-limits to Palestinians in Gaza – including valuable agricultural lands.

International pressure must be applied.

The EU, member states and regional stakeholders must work in concert to steer the Trump plan towards a rights-respecting transition and political solution for Palestinians and Israelis. While engagement with the Trump administration is critical, it is not a substitute for the need to impose costs and consequences on Israel to ensure a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank and an end of violence.

The EU must continue to promote normative frameworks consistent with the ICJ advisory opinion and should only support the dispatch of forces to Gaza if those forces are part of a UN-mandated international peacekeeping mission tasked with ending intercommunal attacks and ensuring Israeli redeployment from all the occupied Palestinian territory. Supporting Palestinian self-determination also means backing a Palestinian reform agenda and ensuring national institutions are able to govern effectively without Israeli interference.

Liel Maghen

Contributor at the Candid Foundation, Policy Associate at the Mitvim Institute and European Young Leader (EYL40)

The recent ceasefire demonstrated more than a pause; it showed how change begins when people refuse to look away. Across Europe, we all witnessed citizens driving the conversation well ahead of state policy. This year confirmed the public’s core demand: people want accountable direction, not abstract statements. It was these collective, sometimes symbolic, demands for action that helped halt the war.

This moment also clarified the scale of European involvement. The European Union has been deeply engaged in the region for decades, quietly yet substantially investing in Palestinian institutions long before the current war began. It treated infrastructure, education and governance not as short-term relief, but as the building blocks of a future state. For many years, the EU has funded universities, strengthened ministries, trained local governance offices, supported water authorities, backed energy planning bodies and expanded leadership development programmes with the ambition of setting a framework for lasting peace.

These sustained efforts mirror the groundwork Europe sponsored in post-conflict settings such as Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ireland. The goal was not dramatic breakthroughs, but the administrative foundations that make a functional state possible. What is still missing now is a deeper, more strategic European involvement in the ‘day after’ architecture.

In the Balkans, oversight frameworks ensured institutions survived long enough to mature, plan infrastructure and hold elections that produced legitimate leadership. In Ireland, long-term civic investment fostered cooperation before the peace pact, allowing disagreements to be addressed politically rather than militarily. Later, demilitarisation processes committed armed groups to transition from violence to politics and participation.

When I look at the Palestinian territories today, the gap feels urgent. Gaza lacks emphasis on local leadership or state-building processes, relying instead on private sector-driven interim security systems that risk quick gains for external investors on the back of local Palestinians. In the West Bank, the spread of violence calls for new security de-escalation arrangements, but authority exists to implement them. Gaza and the West Bank need a trusted, internationally sponsored ecosystem that can contain disagreement while investing in locally-led institutions through long-term support that will prevent them from collapsing.

Europe’s legacy teaches us that lasting peace comes from shared institutions and interdependence, long-term civic investment, legitimate leadership shaped through elections, demilitarisation tied to participation, and a regional economic horizon based on shared interests rather than competing threats. Peace, ultimately, begins where a state becomes viable enough that violence is no longer the primary organising force. What is needed now is the international sponsorship that will push for this reality.

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.