With close to 400 days behind the beginning of an armed conflict between Israel and Hamas led Palestinian militant groups, Israel has been intensifying and expanding its attack against Gaza. Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has killed more than 38,000 Palestinians, injured more than 86,000, and displaced over 2 million. The war in Gaza has been an outcome of a collective political and moral failure, stemming from the incapability to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. While the United States of America has been the biggest supporter of military assistance to the war, Europe’s stance on the ongoing conflict has been evolving, with several Member States of the European Union voicing their stern opposition against Israel’s military actions, while some European observers being implicitly critical of the supporters of Israel in Washington.

Many European countries continue to support Israel militarily, as well as economically, with the EU exporting weapons to Israel and funding the conflict in other ways Despite an interim ruling by the International Court of Justice in January 2024 that suggested the Israeli army might be committing genocide, some EU countries have continued supplying arms to Israel. While the EU has a mechanism to enforce arms embargoes, it has not applied it to Israel. According to SIPRI, Germany has been the largest European supplier of weapons to Israel, accounting for 30 percent of Israel’s arms imports between 2019 and 2023. In the past year, German arms exports to Israel have surged tenfold, rising from 32.3 million euros ($35 million) to 326.5 million euros ($354 million), with most export licenses being issued in the aftermath of the start of the war. This has resulted in Member States only gradually adopting measures, often under pressure from civil society, with little political motivation and insufficient action.

However, the dynamic evolution of the European stance becomes clear with the EU High Representative Josep Borell’s statement on military action in Rafah, claiming that “it would worsen an already catastrophic humanitarian situation and prevent the urgently needed provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance.” Support of the French President, Emmanuel Macron to the ‘Two-State Solution’ to meet the security needs and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, and the concerns of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz over the humanitarian situation in Gaza is indicative of a re-evaluation of their unyielding support to Israel.

In the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Israel’s tactics, including carpet bombing, collective punishment, and siege warfare, which fatally impact innocent civilians and children, are moving beyond the limits of acceptable conduct. Equally troubling is the apparent inability of international organizations and their associated bodies to carry out their roles in peacekeeping and conflict prevention and to hold Israel accountable for its colonial actions, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The relationship between the United States and Israel, when analysed, reveals a concerning situation. While the White House frequently advocates for peace, freedom, and human rights, along a ‘rules-based’ global order, its unwavering support for Israel exposes a clear discrepancy between the American rhetoric and practice. Such inconsistencies and double standards, as demonstrated by Washington’s approach to the Ukraine War, further undermine trust in the international order led by the US. Public sentiment also challenges the US’s role as a credible steward of global order, leading to a growing disillusionment with Washington’s ability to uphold a just world order, especially in light of Israel’s genocidal war. A rules-based order that has different rules for different actors, adjusts distinctively for various actors fosters a disorder rooted in arbitrariness. This results in a chaotic situation where the interpretation of rules varies greatly, undermining the possibility of a cohesive global order. The U.S. is seen as the primary cause of this emerging global disarray.

Washington appeared taken aback by the lack of commitment from its European allies, seemingly overlooking recent events, such as the abrupt U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan announced unilaterally by the Trump Administration. Similarly, the consequences of Obama’s 2012 statement that Syria’s chemical weapons were a ‘red line’ for military intervention, followed by cooperation with Moscow, led to significant rifts with European partners. These past events highlight that fractures can arise among key NATO allies. The European position on the Gaza conflict demonstrates that past and historical disappointments can lead nations to pursue their independent paths.

The geopolitical discordance in transatlantic relations over the Gaza issue has been a result of divergent domestic political considerations of the two actors. While the US views Israel as a pillar of safeguarding Washington’s strategic interests in the Middle East, they continue to disregard the civilian casualties as well as the humanitarian crisis in their support to Israel. Not only does Europe not have similar strategic interests, it considers itself to be more at risk than any other actor, while being “caught between two wars,” as a result of the ongoing two-year conflict in Ukraine. The idea of a multipolar world is becoming more prominent in light of these events, especially regarding the Gaza conflict. The significant humanitarian consequences of this crisis highlight the need to reassess global geopolitical dynamics.

EU being a normative power, a regional organisation that stands on the pillars of democracy, rule of law, and human rights, can perform better in upholding the same in the case of Gaza, in order to protect its credibility and legitimacy. As the Union commits to a greater involvement in the region, there is a need for greater partnerships with regional partners towards a peace conference, to help build a full sovereign Palestinian State, capable of restoring the dignity and security of the region. With a moral and political obligation to strengthen commitment in achieving peace, the EU’s future role on the global stage, especially in their relations with the countries of the Global South, will significantly depend on their role in the resolution of the conflict.