The ideological divides within Europe regarding the ongoing conflict in Gaza became evident during a recent and intense European Parliament debate centered around the use of the term “genocide.” This debate, titled “Gaza at breaking point: EU action to combat famine, the urgent need to release hostages and move towards a two-state solution,” was held in Strasbourg just two days before a non-binding resolution on Gaza was set to be voted upon. Despite the Parliament’s lack of a direct diplomatic role in the conflict, its discussions and resolutions are expected to exert political pressure on Israel regarding its actions in Gaza amidst a dire humanitarian situation.
The European Union has collectively acknowledged that Israel’s military actions in Gaza violate human rights provisions established in its Association Agreement, though it has refrained from imposing sanctions. This reluctance stems from various member states’ desire to maintain amicable relations with Israel. The debate was polarized, particularly on whether the term “genocide” accurately characterized Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Notably, Spanish MEP Nacho Sánchez Amor advocated for a strong condemnation of the situation, labeling it as genocide, while far-right MEP Antonio Tânger Corrêa argued that Hamas should be held accountable as a terrorist organization obstructing peace efforts. Tensions escalated as MEP Sander Smit criticized fellow member Marc Botenga for employing the term “genocide” and deemed it a disservice to victims of historical genocides.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has deepened following a Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, leading to thousands of Palestinian casualties as the conflict escalated. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, approximately 64,000 Palestinians, predominantly women and children, have died as a result of the ongoing Israeli offensive since the attack, with concerns raised about the accuracy of these figures. The meanings and implications of “genocide” are anchored in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defines it as acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, thus highlighting the complexity and gravity of the term’s use in this context.
Before the debate, EU’s foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas highlighted the disunity among EU member states regarding the conflict, suggesting that this lack of consensus hampers collective action. The Commission had faced scrutiny over its diplomatic stance, particularly regarding comments made by Teresa Ribera, Spain’s executive vice president. Ribera used the term “genocide” publicly, criticizing Europe’s failure to present a unified front in light of widespread protests and international calls for an immediate ceasefire. This statement was met with backlash from Israeli officials, who accused her of acting as a propaganda voice for Hamas.
Subsequent to Ribera’s remarks, the EU Commission clarified its position, distancing itself from her use of the term “genocide.” Spokesperson Paula Pinho emphasized that defining such terms is the responsibility of courts, and there has yet to be an official decision from the College of Commissioners on this matter. This indicates the complexities and sensitivities involved in discussing the conflict, particularly regarding terminology that carries significant historical connotations. The debate not only illustrates the deep-rooted divisions among EU member states but also the challenge of achieving a coherent and unified response to humanitarian crises.
Ultimately, the European Parliament’s discussions mirror broader geopolitical concerns, highlighting the intricate interplay of ethics, international law, and diplomatic strategy in addressing human rights violations in conflict zones. As member states grapple with the implications of their relationships with Israel, the debate over the terminology used to describe the situation reflects not only on the perceived actions of Israel but also on the broader responsibilities of Europe as a collective entity. The varying opinions within the EU underscore the need for a more cohesive framework in addressing international crises while also being mindful of the complexities involved in defining terms that have both legal and humanitarian implications.
The outcome of the upcoming vote on the non-binding resolution related to Gaza will likely serve as an important barometer of the EU’s approach to foreign policy and its commitment to human rights protection. This situation, pausing at the juncture of political maneuvering and moral obligation, represents a significant challenge for Europe’s governance structure, compelling member states to reconcile their national interests with collective European values on human rights and humanitarian intervention.
