Weekly Briefing, Vol. 67. No. 4 (HU) November 2023
The Gaza conflict and European responses
Terrorism and violence are never a good answer to any political problem we face. As we firmly maintained in our briefings before the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2021, we can never justify war, even if the causes of war are real and need to be addressed. War is still being war. The same applies to Hamas attacks on Israel, not only because innocent people suffer and die in the process, but because such attacks are often seen as justification for acts of revenge – again, innocent people are affected – but also because it sets in motion a cycle of violence that is very difficult to stop.
This briefing focuses – after a brief introduction and description of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel – on the reactions of the Member States of the European Union. Although there is no common policy at EU level, member states often try to find common positions on global political issues, especially on polarizing topics and events. So far, in many cases it has been extremely difficult or impossible to find these common positions. The UN vote on the ceasefire in Gaza and the political reactions of the member states show us that the European Union is far from finding a unified position in this case. If we look back, the civil war in Yugoslavia and the second Iraq war were typical cases in which the formation of a unified position proved to be basically impossible for the Member States of the European Union. We can now see that the Gaza conflict and its interpretation will suffer the same fate.
A brief history of the conflict
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an attack on Israeli territories near the Gaza Strip. Around 1,200 people were killed in the terrorist attack and around 250 hostages were taken by the attacking troops. Not only soldiers, but also civilians – including women and children – were abducted by Hamas. In retaliation for the terrorist attack, the Israeli army carried out several air and artillery strikes in which – according to various estimates – around 14,000 people died. When Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas gained control of the area after a bloody war between Hamas and Fatah. Since then, Israel and Hamas have fought six wars, including the most recent events.
The Israeli state’s response was swift and decisive. Israel called up around 300,000 reservists to reinforce its 160,000 soldiers. While Israel announced that it would have “overall security responsibility” for the Gaza Strip, it also denied wanting to reoccupy the territory. In addition to the airstrikes, Israeli troops moved through the Gaza Strip to search for terrorists. A four-day cessation of hostilities was due to begin on Friday (24.11.2013). The ceasefire ended after a week and hostilities resumed. During this time, Hamas agreed to release 50 hostages. In return, Israel will release 150 Palestinian prisoners and greatly facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.[1]
Temporary cease fire in Gaza
Israel and Hamas agreed on a ceasefire that began on November 24 and ended on December 1. The one-week period was used to release hostages. During the ceasefire, hostilities were temporarily suspended and humanitarian aid was granted access to the Gaza Strip. At the same time, Hamas released prisoners and Israel released Palestinian prisoners in return.
Israel has emphasized the demand for the release of all hostages, including children and civilian women, by Hamas as part of the current ceasefire agreement. The terrorist group responsible for the October 7 attack in southern Israel, which killed some 1,200 people, had taken some 240 hostages during the attack. As part of the temporary ceasefire, 105 civilians were freed from Hamas captivity in the Gaza Strip, including 81 Israelis, 23 Thais and 1 Filipino.[2]
After the ceasefire expired, Israel immediately resumed the bombardment of the Gaza Strip, particularly in eastern Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip. The Israeli military claimed that Hamas had fired rockets at Israel at the end of the ceasefire.
European reactions
When the conflict began, the European Union and its member states appeared to be unwavering in their support for Israel. But as the weeks passed, cracks began to appear in this unified response to the Gaza conflict, and since then political rifts over support have deepened. The main reason for the dwindling European support is the rising death toll of around 14,000 people, including women and children. The President of the European Commission, Ursula van der Leyen, reiterated the EU’s support during her visit to the country on October 13, without mentioning the victims in Gaza. Since then, however, the EU and the Commission seem to have adopted a slightly different position on the issue.
The Hungarian Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood, Várhelyi, declared in a post on X (formerly Twitter) after the Hamas attack on Israel that “all payments” to the Palestinian authorities would be stopped. A few hours later, he had to retract this statement. Spain, Ireland and the Netherlands protested against this. And the EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell, insisted that humanitarian aid to the Palestinians would not be suspended.[3]
In the light of 20th century history, Germany is Israel’s strongest supporter. The German Chancellor was the first European politician to visit the country after the terrorist attack. While all major German parties condemned the Haza attack on Israel, there was no substantive debate about the conflict. Some of the pro-Palestinian allies were banned, and even small Jewish protests in Germany that criticized Israel were censored. At the same time, anti-Semitic incidents became more frequent, including the throwing of two Molotov cocktails at a synagogue in Berlin.[4]
A fierce debate has broken out in Germany about the Gaza conflict and Israel’s actions, polarizing society. An open letter from a group of Jewish artists, writers and academics in Germany shows this confusion and reflects that there are many voices in this debate, according to the letter: “There is no defense for the deliberate targeting of civilian life. We condemn without reservation the terrorist attacks on civilians by Hamas. Many of us have family and friends in Israel who have been directly affected by this violence. We condemn with equal force the killing of civilians in Gaza.”[5]
This is in sharp contrast to the line of German foreign policy, which in this case follows American foreign policy and has no articulated and clear strategy for the region. Austria has a very similar stance on the Gaza conflict to Berlin, while Switzerland’s position is not as clear. On the one hand, the country has frozen its support for Palestinian human rights organizations, while on the other hand it continues to support the investigations of the International Criminal Court (ICC), including on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories.[6]
The United Kingdom has followed the line of the United States in the Gaza conflict. In his statement, the British Prime Minister emphasized Israel’s right to self-defense and the prevention of a regional conflict in the first days of the conflict, while not pointing out the importance of a ceasefire, and the United Kingdom supplied Tel-Aviv with weapons. Since then, Israel’s staunch support has been complemented by humanitarian aid to Gaza.[7]
In its response, the British government must not only consider the course of US foreign policy, but also the population, as 6.5 percent of the United Kingdom’s population is Muslim, i.e. around 3.9 million people. On November 25, 2023, a national march for Palestine took place in central London, attended by tens of thousands. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign estimated the number of participants at 300 thousand people.[8]
| Table 1: Votes on the Gaza ceasefire resolution at the United Nations |
| Austria against |
| Belgium in favor |
| Bulgaria abstains from voting |
| Croatia against |
| Cyprus abstains from voting |
| Czech Republic against |
| Denmark abstains from voting |
| Estonia abstains from voting |
| Finland abstains from voting |
| France in favor |
| Germany abstains from voting |
| Greece abstains from voting |
| Hungary against |
| Italy abstains from voting |
| Latvia abstains from voting |
| Lithuania abstains from voting |
| Luxembourg in favor |
| Malta in favor |
| Netherlands abstains from voting |
| Poland abstains from voting |
| Portugal in favor |
| Romania abstains from voting |
| Slovakia abstains from voting |
| Slovenia in favor |
| Spain in favor |
| Sweden abstains from voting |
| Source: UN General Assembly adopts Gaza resolution calling for an immediate and sustained “humanitarian ceasefire” https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847 |
To understand the complexity of the situation in the United Kingdom, it is worth remembering that the Prime Minister sacked the Home Secretary only a few days ago who accused the police of being too lenient with pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The former Home Secretary also made remarks that drew anger from many quarters, calling the marches “hate marches”.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron met the representative of the Arab League on November 22, 2023. After the meeting he said: “Discussions with the Arab-Islamic Ministerial Committee focused on how to secure the release of all hostages, increase the amount of aid into Gaza, and reach a long-term political solution to the crisis, … “
On this day, representatives from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Palestine, Turkey, Indonesia, and Nigeria as well as the Secretary General of the Arab League and the Ambassador of Qatar gathered in London. Mandated by the Extraordinary Joint Summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – Arab League on November 11, these nations are tasked with taking international action to end the conflict in Gaza and establish a lasting peace.[9]
In contrast to the United Kingdom and Germany, France took a more balanced position from the beginning of the conflict. On November 10, French President Francis Macron called for a ceasefire and provided humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. France also sent a hospital ship to deliver aid efficiently.[10]
On November 9, 2023, France announced that it would provide 80 million euros in humanitarian aid to the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, in addition to the 21.4 million dollars already pledged by the French government this year.[11]
The French President has not only repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire but has also reaffirmed his support for the two-state solution.
Italy has reaffirmed its stance on the two-state solution. The Italian Prime Minister declared that the Italian government recognizes the Palestinian Authority as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. He said “We are ready to do our part if requested. Italy, with its credibility in the Middle East, can play an important role in the two-state solution, …”[12]
At the same time, they declared that they support “Israel’s right to self-defense”. With this position, Italy holds similar views to France. Both countries are destination countries for migration and are home to a significant part of the Muslim population and are trying to deal with the Gaza conflict in a less confrontational way than the United Kingdom and Germany.
Sweden published a position paper on the Gaza conflict on November 2, 2023, and updated the paper on November 23, 2023. The Swedish Foreign Ministry emphasized five points in the position paper:
- Sweden recognizes Israel’s right to self-defense but adds that this right is not absolute. This right must be in accordance with international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The paper formulates this as follows: “International law apply to everyone and always, regardless of geographic context.”[13]
- According to the Swedish Foreign Ministry, the protection of the civilian population has top priority. This protection has two sides: Hamas should not hide behind civilians and use them as human shields and Israel should not attack civilian infrastructure and property.
- Access to the region to provide humanitarian aid is essential. According to the paper, the main responsibility lies with Hamas, but the Israeli authorities also bear responsibility in this case. The ministry points out the difference between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Sweden supports the establishment of humanitarian corridors.
- The ministry’s position paper also points out that a regional escalation of the Gaza crisis must be avoided. The paper argues that joint diplomatic efforts are needed to avoid a full-blown war and other repercussions in the region.
- Sweden reiterated its firm conviction that the conflict can only be resolved through the so-called two-state solution, which can contribute to sustainable peace in the region and the coexistence of Israel and Palestine.
The Ministry issued this paper because it wanted to explain its position and refrained from voting. The paper pointed out that the main reason for the abstention was that the resolution was ambiguous in its condemnation of Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel.
Spain has had a diplomatic row with Israel after the Spanish Prime Minister expressed his “real doubts” about whether Israel was complying with international and humanitarian law in Gaza. Following these remarks, Israel recalled its ambassador in Madrid and reprimanded the Spanish ambassador to Israel. The Spanish Prime Minister had visited Israel a week earlier and said that Tel Aviv should reconsider its operation in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen responded to this criticism on X as follows: “Israel is acting, and will continue to act, according to international law, and will continue the war until all the hostages are returned and Hamas is eliminated from Gaza, … “[14]
In general, it can be said that the European Union’s situation is the worst imaginable, as it is affected by the crisis but on the sidelines, unable to intervene or influence the management of the Gaza conflict in any meaningful way. While the EU member states unanimously condemned Hamas’ attack on Israel at the end of October, they were later divided at the United Nations over the resolution on the ceasefire in Gaza. France, Spain and Italy voted in favor of the resolution, Germany and Italy abstained and Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic voted against. A look at the table shows that there are no clear country groups in this case. While the Mediterranean countries were apparently in favor of the resolution, Cyprus was against.
The director of the European Middle East Project said in this context that “They can agree on a position on paper, but it’s kind of a minimum common denominator, and it doesn’t allow the EU to very forcefully push for something.”[15]
Traditionally, we can say that the EU and its Member States have taken a balanced position on this issue, but this time the discourse has been more nuanced and diverse. Europe has two weaknesses that prevent the EU from pursuing a credible foreign policy in this case: (1) Unlike the United States, the European Union cannot provide security guarantees for Israel, so its political influence in Israel is extremely weak. (2) The EU and its member states do not enjoy the trust of the Palestinians that exists in many parts of the Islamic world. For this reason, the European Union seems to behave like a “lame duck”, with weak influence and constrained by domestic political conditions and the divergent opinions of EU member states on the Gaza conflict.
Hungary’s position on the Gaza conflict
As already mentioned, Hungary, together with Austria, Croatia and the Czech Republic, voted against the UN resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade explained why Hungary voted against the resolution: “The resolution did not condemn the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, did not call for the unconditional release of over 200 hostages, and did not affirm the right of states to self-defense.” He added: “Hungary supported Canada’s amendment due to these deficiencies, which would have improved the text by condemning the Hamas terrorist attack and calling for the release of hostages. Unfortunately, the amendment was not adopted.”[16]
The Hungarian Foreign Minister pointed out that Hungarian citizens had also been kidnapped: “Based on the latest information, currently, there are 11 Hungarian citizens in the Gaza Strip, mostly minors. We have established contact with all families; they are in good condition given the circumstances and plan to leave the region depending on the unfolding events.”
Hungarian foreign policy – as we have maintained in our previous briefings – takes a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, focusing mainly on the advancement of Hungarian interests. In this case, the release of the Hungarian hostages was the primary goal of Hungarian foreign policy, and it was successful in its efforts to support the release of Hungarian citizens. We now know of only two people being held by Hamas.
Summary
The briefing provided an overview of the Gaza conflict, focusing in particular on the reactions of the member states of the European Union (EU). We emphasized the lack of a common EU policy on the issue and drew parallels with historical examples where it was difficult to form a unified position.
The conflict began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an attack on Israeli territories near the Gaza Strip, resulting in deaths and hostages. Israel responded with air and artillery strikes, resulting in a significant number of deaths. The briefing attempted to clarify the complexity of the situation. Israel and Hamas agreed on a temporary ceasefire and released hostages during the ceasefire.
European reactions to the Gaza conflict vary from one Member State to another. Initial support for Israel was interrupted over time by the rising death toll. We discussed the positions of individual countries such as Hungary, Germany, United Kingdom Britain, France, Italy, Sweden, and Spain. The positions of these countries were very different and ranged from strong support for Israel to calls for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid.
The EU’s inability to take a united stance is attributed to historical, geopolitical, and domestic political factors. We can argue that the EU lacks political influence and trust among both Israelis and Palestinians, making it difficult to effectively influence the situation. We conclude with an analysis of the Hungarian position, highlighting its pragmatic approach to foreign policy and its successful efforts to secure the release of Hungarian citizens held captive in Gaza.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975
[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-frees-2-israeli-women-with-6-8-more-set-for-return-thursday-alongside-3-bodies/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/09/eu-freeze-of-palestinian-funds-sparks-diplomatic-row
[4] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231118-germany-s-historical-guilt-haunts-opponents-of-israeli-war-in-gaza
[5] https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/freedom-for-the-one-who-thinks-differently/
[6] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/europe-s-divisions-over-israel-support-deepen-as-gaza-deaths-mount/3062906
[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-commits-further-support-to-get-aid-into-gaza
[8] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/25/london-protesters-at-pro-palestinian-march-demand-permanent-gaza-ceasefire
[9] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/uk-foreign-secretary-stresses-importance-of-flowing-more-aid-into-gaza/3062079
[10] https://www.reuters.com/world/france-send-new-medical-supplies-hospital-ship-gaza-2023-11-19/
[11] https://www.voanews.com/a/paris-conference-mobilizes-aid-for-gaza/7348742.html
[12] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/italy-says-gaza-should-be-part-of-future-palestine-state/3052780
[13] https://www.government.se/articles/2023/11/swedens-position-on-the-conflict-between-israel-and-hamas/
[14] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67575699
[15] https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/11/23955999/israel-gaza-european-union-germany-spain
[16] https://infostart.hu/belfold/2023/10/29/kiderult-miert-szavazatott-a-gazai-tuzszunet-ellen-magyarorszag#