Why the European Union Won’t Sanction Israel

Once again, everything comes back to what is both the European Union’s strength and Achilles’ heel: the number 27. The foreign ministers and the EU’s High Representative ultimately decided not to decide.

Clearly, 1492 left its mark. Spain pushed for a suspension, a review of relations, and sanctions—but alas, the other member states did not comply. Germany, a long-time supporter of Jerusalem, led the opposition to sanctions, backed notably by Italy and Hungary.

Meanwhile, “The Hague Group,” founded in late January and made up of 28 countries aiming to “end Israel’s violations of international law,” held an “emergency summit” in Bogotá. It included South Africa, Bolivia, Honduras, Namibia, Cuba, Malaysia, and Senegal—countries broadly identified under the label of the Global South. Others joined as guests: Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, and Norway. These nations all accuse Israel and call for “a suspension of arms deliveries”—especially easy to demand when they are not the ones supplying them. United, at least rhetorically, in isolating Israel, this group seems to have discovered a convenient global scapegoat to blame for all the world’s thicknesses —and when real problems don’t suffice, they invent new ones.

Before the meeting, the group, to put pressure, did send a letter to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Council’s acting President António Costa of Portugal, and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, demanding concrete action…

Among all the voices raised, Spain’s Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares came across as the most vocal and extreme in his stance.

Nevertheless, Germany, Italy, and Hungary firmly opposed any such measures, effectively slamming the door on further proposals. Surprisingly or not, EU rules require either unanimity or a qualified majority to enact any suspensions, sanctions, or diplomatic ruptures—a fact well known to all member states. The three aforementioned countries and a few others are enough to form a blocking minority. So much of the Israel’s accusators is really just political posturing and theatrical bluster.

The Underlying Reason

The facts speak for themselves. More European countries are buying weapons from Israel—not out of goodwill, but because the products meet their needs and have proven their effectiveness in real-world operations. That is more than some other suppliers can say. Here is a breakdown:

• Germany: Decades-long cooperation. Submarines, Arrow 3 missile defense system (Arrow 4 pending), drones, and recently, a reinforced agreement on electronic warfare and cybersecurity—fields in which Israel is a leader.
• Romania: Barak MX missile defense system, drones, and electronic equipment.
• Greece: Increasing military cooperation, especially as relations with Turkey sour. Anti-drone defense systems and pilot training.
• Netherlands: Purchase of EL/M2084 radars, talks on cybersecurity and electronic defense.
• Finland: Elta radars for aerial surveillance.
• Czech Republic: MADR mobile radars, Spyder batteries, and cybersecurity cooperation.
• Slovakia: Barak MX air defense radars and military modernization.
• Cyprus: Growing cooperation, intelligence sharing, undisclosed equipment purchases.
• Italy: Practical collaboration, especially in air and naval forces, development of drones and surveillance tech.
• Poland: Spike missiles produced under license, a defense information protection agreement since 2011, ongoing talks on major cybersecurity and electronic protection systems—potentially worth several billion dollars. Facing Russia, Poland is looking to learn from Israel’s air defense experience.
• France: Limited cooperation with private firms in urban and airport cybersecurity.
• United Kingdom: Collaboration in cybersecurity and counterterrorism.
• Spain: Border surveillance equipment purchases, canceled orders. Tech cooperation and airport security projects now on hold.
• Scandinavian countries: Occasional purchases, with growing interest in cyber and anti-drone protection due to their geopolitical context.

Additional military equipment is sold discreetly.

NATO’s Decision Opens the Door for Israel

NATO’s recent decisions, along with parallel ones regarding future EU military procurement, now allow up to 35% of purchases to come from outside the EU—far more than France’s preferred 15% cap. This opens the door for increased Israeli sales to Europe.

A Double Standard in Public Communication

There are multiple layers of messaging. What happens between states doesn’t always align with what is said in the media or by politicians. But facts are facts.

It’s clear that the bloc most hostile to Israel does not have the majority in either NATO or the EU. Defense ties are playing a crucial role in shaping interstate relations. We also see that the Ukraine war has acted as an accelerator, just as the US-led shift in defense doctrine has served as a wake-up call for an EU and NATO that had dozed under the American security umbrella since 1945.

The European Defense Question

The awakening has been harsh. Serious disagreements between Berlin and Paris have emerged regarding shared defense projects and responsibilities. To say that the sixth-generation fighter jet program (SCAF), launched in 2017, is in trouble would be an understatement. It has already cost over €100 billion and has been delayed multiple times. A new decision is expected in the coming weeks. Its rollout is now planned for 2040—but Berlin is hesitating, as it evaluates joining the British-led “Tempest” project, which aims for delivery by 2035.

It’s clear the Franco-German tandem is faltering. It’s not what it used to be.

Germany now speaks in hundreds of billions of euros in investments, while France, with its precarious finances, thinks in tens of millions at best. The gap between the two countries is widening. Berlin is openly aiming to become Europe’s leading conventional military power and a global player. Germany is preparing both its defense and civil protection for possible conflict. In France, however, the authorities seem to hesitate, wavering between framing the moment as a pivot to a “war economy” or “just” a severe financial crisis—or maybe both. Those in charge ought to know and speak honestly. But as the old saying goes: Politicians are working primarily at their reelection, while statesmen are working with the people’s interest in mind and acting accordingly. This made a big difference in the past definitely, it does even make a huge difference nowadays.

Such is the state of the world.