Europe’s obsession with Israel | Euractiv

Few countries occupy as much space in the diplomatic imagination of the European Union as Israel. EU institutions pay extraordinary attention to Israeli policies, actions and conflicts, often placing them at the center of diplomatic discussions in a way that is difficult to explain by Israel’s size, power or formal relationship with the Union.

This disproportionate focus raises important questions. Does the EU apply its diplomatic control consistently across countries and conflicts? And if not, what are the consequences for its credibility and influence in the Middle East? At the same time, Israel’s growing tendency to dismiss the EU as strategically irrelevant may be creating problems of its own.

or new study from the Jewish People’s Policy Institute (JPPI) sheds empirical light on these questions. The researchers analyzed more than 24,000 official statements, press releases and diplomatic communications issued by the European External Action Service (EEAS) between 2017 and April 2026. Of these, 895 directly related to Israel. The study also examined how Israel was portrayed in EU diplomatic discourse.

The findings are surprising and serve as a warning to Brussels and Jerusalem. Israel occupies an extremely prominent place in the Union’s diplomatic imagination. It accounted for approximately 4% of all official EEAS diplomatic statements during the period examined. This level of attention is not explained by Israel’s formal relationship with the Union – Israel is neither a member of the EU nor a candidate, and is not among the world’s major powers. However, it attracts attention from Brussels beyond what its size and formal status would suggest.

The tone of that attention is just as revealing. Over the entire period, 38% of EEAS statements regarding Israel were negative, 49% were neutral and only 13% were positive. After the October 7 massacre, the balance shifted even further: negative statements rose from 29% before the attack to nearly 46% afterward; positive statements dropped from almost 20% to just 8%.

Criticism of Israel is neither illegitimate nor surprising. Democracies are scrutinized because they are expected to uphold democratic values, and Israel should not be beyond scrutiny. The question is not whether Israel should be criticized. The question is whether similar standards apply consistently throughout the international system.

Comparative findings raise serious doubts. Iran received the most negative treatment among the countries examined, largely because of its military cooperation with Russia and its wider role in regional instability. Turkey presents another case. Despite years of democratic erosion, restrictions on freedom of expression and rising tensions with European capitals, roughly three-quarters of official EEAS statements regarding Turkey were neutral, mostly focused on technical issues related to its candidacy for EU membership.

The most revealing comparison is Qatar, for which more than two-thirds of European statements were positive; Negative references were almost non-existent. This despite the “Qatargate case”, which raised serious questions about foreign influence within the European Parliament. This controversy barely registered in the official rhetoric examined by the researchers.

The contrast is hard to ignore: a democratic state fighting a war caused by the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust receives constant scrutiny and intense criticism, while authoritarian actors are often treated with apparent caution or leniency.

This inconsistency is not simply a public relations problem. It undermines the EU’s ability to present itself as a credible and impartial actor in the Middle East. For decades, European leaders have sought a central role in efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, influence depends on belief, and belief depends on consistency. By applying significantly different standards to different actors, the EU weakens its claim to be an indispensable diplomatic mediator in the region.

The JPPI study also reveals a growing intellectual gap between Brussels and Jerusalem. More than half of all EEAS statements regarding Israel included references to the two-state solution or the creation of a Palestinian state.

The problem is not that the EU continues to support a two-state outcome; many serious people still consider it the only long-term stable framework. The problem is that EU diplomacy often invokes it as if October 7 had not fundamentally changed the perception of the Israeli threat. A formula that does not address these perceptions will not convince the Israeli public, regardless of its diplomatic background.

However, the most important conclusion of the study may not be that the EU talks too much about Israel. Maybe Israel talks too little with Europe. While the EU remains intensely focused on Israel, Israel largely ignores Europe. Since October 7, Israeli diplomacy has been focused, understandably, on Washington, regional security challenges and the expansion of the Abraham Accords.

These are legitimate priorities. But they have come at the expense of sustained engagement with EU institutions, European governments, the media, universities and policy communities.

This negligence carries risks. The EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner. Approximately one-third of Israel’s merchandise trade is with EU member states. The EU is also Israel’s most important partner in research, innovation and higher education. No alternative partner offers Israel access to a comparable ecosystem of research funding, academic collaboration and technology networks.

At a time when economic competitiveness increasingly depends on scientific excellence and technological innovation, relations with the EU are not a diplomatic luxury. They are a strategic asset. But many Israelis have come to regard Europe as a lost cause, assuming that European attitudes are fixed, EU institutions are irrevocably hostile, and investment in the relationship is unlikely to pay off. This is not realism; it’s resignation.

Foreign policy is not just about engaging with those who already agree with you. It is about forming debates, building coalitions and protecting national interests even in difficult environments. When Israel withdraws from the European arena, others fill the vacuum. When it stops trying to influence the European discourse, one should not be surprised when that discourse evolves without Israel’s input.

The EU must ask why Israel occupies so much space in its diplomatic imagination and whether this excessive focus reflects balanced diplomacy or an entrenched double standard. Israel must ask why the Union occupies so little space in its strategic thinking and whether it can afford to neglect its most important economic, scientific and technological partner.

Neither Brussels nor Jerusalem benefits from the current trajectory. The EU risks its credibility as a diplomatic actor. Israel risks its influence, its economic interests and its scientific future in a relationship it cannot afford to neglect.

Both outcomes are avoidable, but only if Israel and the EU begin to treat this relationship with the seriousness it deserves.

Professor Sharon Pardo is a senior fellow at the Jewish People’s Policy Institute and professor of European studies and international relations in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.