Calls for EU Sanctions on Israel and Regional Fallout

Israeli jets have flown into Doha, Qatar to strike Hamas targets within the area. This maneuver by Israel has not only gained attention from those within the region, but also worldwide. International backlash condemning Israel for their actions has accumulated among many countries and the majority of the public. They are now taking the war outside of Gaza into new municipalities, spreading the fear of violence and danger. The European Union has now considered the possibility of imposing sanctions on Israel as well as Hamas and other violent actors, which would restrict trade and diplomatic relations within the countries. The strikes in Doha demonstrate that this isn’t just about the threat on Gaza: it is about the threat on international sovereignty and diplomacy. This situation has made European, Arab, and Islamic states consider confronting Israel in ways it never has before.
Airstrikes in the city of Gaza and now Doha, Qatar have caused civilian casualties and diplomatic outrage within Western countries and especially among Arab and Islamic states. The Doha strike, unlike the ones in Gaza, were uniquely destructive because it violated a friendly nation’s sovereignty in addition to spreading violence. Qatar had previously enjoyed diplomatic relations with Israel, and claims they were given no information about this action happening. The Doha strike left several individuals dead, including a couple of Hamas affiliates and a Qatar security soldier. Israel responded, stating that the strikes in Doha were intended at Hamas leaders involved in ceasefire negotiations. However, the question remains: Does this give a nation the right to send airstrikes to another nation unannounced, putting innocent lives at risk?

Qatar has paused all mediation efforts between Israel and Hamas and calls for a violation of international law.  Furthermore, the airstrikes in Doha have led to calls for a unified response among Arab-Islamic states from the summit in Doha and have caused potential destabilization of the Abraham Accords. In addition, many have cited proof of Israel’s aggression from these attacks and called for a reconsideration of Israel's military reach in surrounding areas.   

Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Union has called to impose EU sanction on Israel as well as Hamas and other violent actors, citing the fact that this violence has gone too far due to the spread of violence to Qatar. Furthermore, the EU advocates to let humanitarian aid into Gaza, as currently little to no aid is allowed. Von der Leyen states “The horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop. There needs to be an immediate ceasefire, unrestrained access for all humanitarian aid, and the release of all hostages held by Hamas. The European Union remains the biggest donor of humanitarian aid and an unwavering champion of the two-state solution. Reflecting these principled commitments, and taking into account serious recent developments in the West Bank, we propose to suspend trade concessions with Israel, sanction extremist ministers and violent settlers, and put bilateral support to Israel on hold, without affecting our work with Israeli civil society or Yad Vashem.”

Prior to this airstrike, the European Union has been vocally critical of Israel, but has never imposed serious consequences. Sanctions being considered between nations are rare and controversial because of the tension it can create between nations. However, this proves that the EU’s patience is running thin: they want this already two-year-old Israel-Hamas conflict to stop. 

The United States openly criticized Israel for the airstrike, claiming it violated sovereignty and further set back the development of peace within the Middle East. The White House has been in peace talks with Israel and Qatar after the strike. However, even though the United States administration supports strong relations with Qatar and advocates for peace, they are not very open to the ideas of imposed sanctions in retaliation to Israel. This is due to the fear that sanctions could undermine cooperation with a key ally to the U.S. This puts Washington and Brussels at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue, and also raises the question of whether the West can maintain a consistent unity on global crises. Will the West be able to produce a two-state solution with lasting peace, or will the tensions spread and worsen?   

Overall, this action by Israel has gained the attention of many nations and caused a divide on how the world approaches the continuing conflict. The U.S. seems to be content to hold peace talks with Israel, but it seems diplomatic talks have only resulted in the continuation of the war, the spread of the conflict to other states, and the restriction of humanitarian aid entering Gaza, inciting a forced famine that many are likening to genocide. The previously vocal but inactive European Union has now opened the door to substantive changes in foreign policy, which is easier said than done: the EU nations would still have to agree on the policy changes. Countries like Spain call for consequences for Israel, whereas Hungary seeks to protect relations with Israel and advocate for their right to defense. In the Arab and Islamic states, they call for a response against Israel, but seek the West's support to do so. The Israel-Hamas War has caused a divide among the world  in opinions on the best solution to end with two states and peace. Israel’s strike in Qatar is particularly disturbing because it is a sign that war has spread beyond Gaza, involving other nations with negligence in communication and courtesy. No solution to the war will be taken seriously unless the world can agree on a front. Diplomatic negotiations can only go on for so long and be so effective when there is a continued war, lack of humanitarian aid, and spread of violence. A change in action has been proposed, but when will it actually take place, and who will be the one to carry it out first? The EU is facing an interesting choice, as sanctioning Israel would give them the role of being an independent global player in the Middle East. Will they be able to devise a plan among their countries or will they continue to be parallel with U.S. policy? This debate is not just about foreign policy on Israel and the war with Hamas, it is about how global power and law are contested in today’s world.