Israel, like any sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself and safeguard the security of its people. The Jewish people endured atrocious and evil pain during the Second World War. Justice can never fully prevail for the horrors committed against them. Their suffering extends to this day, with brutal terrorist attacks, hostage situations, and daily threats from extremist groups. It is understandable that Israelis feel surrounded by dangerous proxy spoilers and find it difficult to trust those who have historically vowed to destroy them. No one should question Israel’s need to protect its borders and people.
However, we must draw a crucial distinction between Hamas, a radical extremist organisation, and the Palestinian people. To merge the two is both morally and strategically incorrect. Most Palestinians are not Hamas. They are civilian families, children, and the elderly, who are trapped in an enclave of suffering they neither chose nor control. This nuance was entirely ignored by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her handling of the Middle East crisis. When von der Leyen travelled to Israel in 2023, she made headlines for her vocal support of Israel’s right to security. Well, a position that, on its own, is warranted. But she stood solely with the Israeli government amid rising tensions. There was no visit to the occupied Palestinian territories. No meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. No stop in Ramallah. No equal expression of concern for the Palestinian civilians enduring immense suffering. I said this publicly back in October 2023 in my article The Distant Dream of Two States Solution.
Well, in diplomacy, balance is not a luxury but a necessity. And von der Leyen’s one-sided approach was not only diplomatically irresponsible but morally wrong. This was not an oversight from her end. It was a deliberate political choice, which ensued with devastating consequences. Her one-sided support translated into a political blessing of the military campaign that ensued. The world watched Gaza descend into a humanitarian catastrophe, with civilians, including women and children, bearing the brunt of indiscriminate bombing. The EU’s vague statements about restraint and aid rang hollow when compared to the President of the Commission’s loud outrage over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There was no equal condemnation. Oh, and there was no equal condemnation either when Armenians were cleansed out of Nagorno-Karabakh by Ilham Aliyev. Von der Leyen is quite selective about which dictators she chooses to warm up to.
The answer lies in political ambition. Von der Leyen’s embrace of Israel was not about geopolitical strategy but calculated political optics. With her sights set on a second term, she sought favour with influential circles in Brussels, especially among European parliamentarians attuned to the concerns of powerful Jewish lobby groups active in the EU capital. Organisations like the European Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee’s Transatlantic Institute engage legitimately with EU institutions, representing the interests and historical grievances of Jewish communities. And rightly so. There is nothing improper about lobbying in a democratic setting and providing policy inputs. What is improper, however, is von der Leyen’s instrumentalisation of that relationship for personal gain. In Brussels, gestures matter, and this was skewed diplomacy in the service of ambition, not principles and EU values. EU values were turned into a joke!
Worse still, this was not just a failure of diplomacy but of character. Von der Leyen shows no conscience, no real empathy, and I hasten to add not even a polished façade. Her public gestures are so staged that they do not resonate empathy and are not genuine either. Her reactions to Ukraine were dramatically different. Von der Leyen’s selective empathy exposes a dark picture. The way it was handled, for von der Leyen, some victims deserve compassion, others do not. Well, aren’t human rights and EU values supposed to be universal? The EU cannot claim to be a neutral actor when its highest representative acts with blatant bias. In Ukraine, von der Leyen rightly condemned Russian aggression, toured war zones, and mobilised extensive EU support – inter alia, humanitarian, military and civil. But when similar or worse destruction unfolded in Gaza and Nagorno-Karabakh, those tools remained partially inactive.
Then came her Workers’ Day post on 1 May, which exposed her warped priorities further. She announced that the EU Civil Protection Mechanism would assist Israel with wildfires sparked by tensions. “Devastating blaze,” she said. The EU was ready to help and act swiftly. Yes, trees, and blaze! Excuse me, but where was this urgency when Gazan homes were turned to ash? This is not about bureaucracy. It is about leadership, morality, and consistency. If the EU can act swiftly for one country’s environment, it can act just as swiftly for another’s humanitarian crisis. Von der Leyen has failed not only the Palestinian people but she has failed Europe and tarnished the EU’s credibility on the global stage.
The European Commission is not a one-person show. It is meant to represent the collective conscience of the EU. But von der Leyen behaves increasingly like a self-appointed foreign minister, marginalising the European External Action Service and the Council. This centralisation of power is not only undemocratic, but dangerous. That’s why I welcomed the recent action by the President of the European Parliament, who finally stood up to von der Leyen’s overreach. It was a move that should have happened much earlier, especially when von der Leyen invoked Article 122 to bypass Parliament on key decisions for ReArm Europe, or whatever they are calling it now. The President of the European Parliament is invited to the European Council, so she had oversight of this proposal. The Parliament’s role is to provide checks and balances on the Commission, regardless of political affiliations. That’s what democracy demands. That is what a House of Democracy looks like.
Indeed, I wrote about this just a few weeks ago. Article 122 cannot be used as a loophole to undermine parliamentary scrutiny. From tiny Malta, with nothing more than a weekly opinion piece, I seem to be doing a better job of holding the European Commission to account than the entire army of institutional oversight mechanisms designed for that purpose. It is time to rethink how the EU conducts common and foreign policy. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the Council must reclaim their roles. Von der Leyen must be held accountable for sidelining EU institutions and rewriting diplomatic norms for personal gain. And although I have my doubts about Kaja Kallas – not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer – institutional roles must be respected. It is time for a reset. The European Union must salvage its identity as a project of peace and partnership, not posturing and provocation. It must turn from escalation to engagement and from rhetoric to realism. And above all, it must remember that diplomacy is not a weakness but a form of resilience and strength. The EU was born from the ashes of war, with a solemn vow of “never again”. That vow rings hollow if the Union’s top official acts with selective outrage and politicised empathy. The world is watching. And history will remember.
