The brutal treatment of activists aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla for Gaza by Israeli forces during their detention in international waters last week triggered a wave of international condemnation, including from many European and other Western countries.
Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Poland, and Greece summoned Israeli ambassadors or envoys to condemn the treatment of activists detained during the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla. The UK said it was “appalled” by the images of the activists’ detentions. These reactions, however, centered around one figure: Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who had posted a video of himself overseeing and encouraging the mistreatment of the activists.
The focus on Ben-Gvir was so singular that France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, included in his condemnation post on X a claim that other Israeli officials had rejected Ben-Gvir’s actions.
That much is true: across the Israeli political spectrum, Ben-Gvir became the convenient scapegoat to draw attention away from the entirety of Israeli politics, which differs very little from Ben-Gvir when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians. But the outrage in Israel wasn’t at the treatment itself, but rather the fact that Ben-Gvir revealed it to the world, causing an international embarrassment. The difference is that Ben-Gvir doesn’t care about the PR problem he’s created, while other Israeli officials do.
So do European politicians. That is why EU governments, in being forced to condemn Israeli conduct, have taken great pains to direct their opprobrium at a specific part of the Israeli system, rather than the system itself. They have repeatedly deployed this tactic in recent weeks, which appears to have become a common doctrine for responding to Israeli violations when they become impossible to ignore.
Two weeks ago, the European Union greenlit the sanctioning of Israeli groups and individuals implicated in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. The decision, which followed years of failed attempts, sanctioned only five groups and four individuals, despite the fact that the settler movement in the West Bank, including its most violent factions, is part of official state policy, openly sponsored by ministers with public budgets.
Another example is when several European countries issued a joint statement last week condemning the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The statement, signed by France, the UK, Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and the Netherlands, characterized settlement expansion as “illegal” and called on Israel to halt it. It then added that the signatories “opposed” those who call for the annexation of the West Bank, including members of the Israeli government. The statement stressed the signatories’ commitment to the two-state solution.
The statement made no mention of the fact that in the past two years, the Israeli Knesset passed two bills with an overwhelming majority, one in 2024 rejecting a Palestinian state, and one in 2025 allowing the government to annex the West Bank.
A new-old pattern
This increasingly repeated pattern of individualizing Israeli policies when condemning them contrasts with the older pattern of either ignoring Israeli practices or outright justifying them as “self-defense.” But is this a new paradigm in Western politics, and will it lead to a larger change of policy toward Israel?
According to Roula Shadid, co-director of the Palestinian Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD), “part of the change in Western discourse towards Israel is the global mobilization in solidarity with Palestinians since October 2023.” Shadid points to a gap between the official discourse of Western governments and the awareness expressed by solidarity movements, noting that “when we talk with diplomats and political actors, they admit that Israeli policies are more structural than they admit publicly, but they have political reasons to maintain their criticism of Israel under a certain ceiling.”
For Shadid, the fragmenting of Israeli policies, pinning them on individual ministers or settler actors, is a reflection of how Israel has fragmented Palestinian reality on the ground. “Israel has imposed a different set of conditions for Palestinians in Gaza from those in Jerusalem or in the West Bank, and Palestinian leadership is also fragmented, which makes room for Western actors to treat different issues separately,” Shadid told Mondoweiss, adding that this forecloses any treatment of Israeli policies as one coherent whole.
In Europe, particularly, governments have for many years invested in the political paradigm created by the Middle East peace process, according to Shadid. “Countries invested politically and financially in the two-state solution project, which in essence is the administration of occupation, and this makes them insist on clinging to the narrative that there is a peace process underway that needs to be saved from a few extremists,” she explained.
Shadid considers that limited condemnations of parts of the Israeli system give Western countries “the ability to continue business as usual with Israel, while containing the increasing demands and legal obligations to dissociate from violations of Palestinian rights.” She also thinks this policy is short-lived.
“Western governments might hope this moment passes, and then recycle their image and go back to business as usual,” she said. “There will be obstacles, because Israel will increase its aggression, its regional wars will continue to expose its colonial project further, and awareness will continue to rise globally about this reality, and so will pressure coming from citizens.”
