The EU’s Selective Ethics: Legal Commitments, Genocide Silence, and the Exceptionalism of Israel

I. Introduction: Legal Commitments and Political Exceptions

The European Union (EU) has long proclaimed a foreign policy grounded in human rights, rule of law, and international cooperation. Its treaties, declarations, and association agreements with third countries consistently refer to “respect for human rights and democratic principles” as essential foundations. Yet nowhere is the gap between principle and practice more glaring than in the EU’s treatment of Israel.

As the death toll in Gaza surpasses tens of thousands, including mass civilian casualties and the leveling of entire neighborhoods, the official voice of the EU remains cautious. It speaks of “humanitarian tragedy,” of the need for “urgent ceasefire,” and of concern for “international law” — yet never names the crime unfolding before its eyes. The word genocide is absent from Council Conclusions. The word slaughter rarely appears in EU communiqués. Instead, the lexicon of European diplomacy offers a refuge of euphemism for one side, and a lexicon of condemnation for others.

This article exposes three major axes of this selective application of law and principle: the EU–Israel Association Agreement, the EU’s position on the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the contrasting treatment of Syria. Together, they illuminate the moral crisis of a union unwilling to apply its own standards when the violator is Israel.

II. The EU–Israel Association Agreement: Article 2 Ignored

The EU–Israel Association Agreement, in force since 2000, governs a wide range of trade, economic, and political cooperation between the two entities. Its foundational Article 2 reads:

“Relations between the Parties… shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.”

This clause is not decorative. In EU foreign relations, similar human rights clauses have led to partial or full suspensions of agreements with:

• Belarus, due to suppression of protests and election rigging;
• Russia, following the annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine;
• Syria, over widespread war crimes by the Assad regime;
• Tunisia, amid authoritarian drift and migrant mistreatment;
• And even Palestine, where EU funding has been withheld based on alleged incitement in textbooks and perceived governance deficiencies.
  
  For ( more details check this companion article on 🔗 Selective Enforcement )

Yet, despite overwhelming, independently verified documentation of violations by Israel — including attacks on civilians, targeting of health facilities, mass displacement, and use of starvation as a method of warfare — the EU has never suspended or conditioned its Association Agreement with Israel.

This legal and moral failure renders Article 2 meaningless. It transforms an “essential element” of cooperation into a rhetorical ornament — reserved for selective enforcement, exempting those deemed geopolitically indispensable.

III. The ICC Proceedings: A Shield for Some, a Sword for Others

In 2021, the International Criminal Court opened a formal investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, covering actions by Israeli authorities, Hamas, and other Palestinian actors since June 2014.

The EU, despite its professed support for international justice mechanisms, has shown deep reluctance to engage the ICC process when Israel is involved:

• Germany, Hungary, Austria, and several other member states have either publicly opposed the investigation or lobbied against its scope.
• The European Commission has never issued a collective call for Israel to cooperate with the Court.
• No EU budget lines have been allocated to support the Palestine case, unlike in the Ukraine context.

In stark contrast, the EU has fully embraced the ICC’s role in Russia’s war in Ukraine:

• It funds investigations and evidence collection mechanisms.
• It endorses ICC arrest warrants against Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin.
• It imposes sanctions based on non-cooperation with the Court.

The disparity is not merely technical — it reflects a hierarchy of accountability. For European diplomats, Ukrainian victims merit justice backed by political will and institutional muscle. Palestinian victims, by contrast, are invited to wait — indefinitely, and in silence.

For ( more details see 🔗 The EU’s Reluctance Toward ICC Investigations Involving Israel )

IV. Contrasts With Syria: Legal Action vs. Legal Amnesia

Nowhere is the EU’s double standard more visible than in the contrasting treatment of Syria and Israel. Both have engaged in military campaigns that resulted in immense civilian harm, city-wide destruction, and violations of international humanitarian law. Yet only one has faced consistent European condemnation and legal consequences.

This contrast raises a fundamental question: Is international law only binding upon the weak or the non-aligned?

V. Vocabulary of Violence: The Politics of Naming

Language is not neutral. It reflects intent, distributes sympathy, and shapes policy. Consider how the EU responds to different images of suffering:

• When Hamas released a photo of a starving Israeli hostage, EU officials quickly described it as “barbaric,” “inhumane,” and “a war crime.”
• When UN agencies released photos of starving children in Gaza, no such terms were used by EU officials. Instead, phrases like “unacceptable humanitarian situation” or “urgent need for aid” replaced the direct accusation.

The word “genocide” — widely debated by legal experts and invoked by multiple UN officials in relation to Gaza — is absent from EU statements. So is “slaughter.” Even as entire families are buried under rubble, the institutional vocabulary remains sterile, neutered by politics.

By contrast, the vocabulary used for Syria, Russia, or even Hamas, is unambiguous, moralistic, and legalistic — laden with urgency and condemnation.

VI. Conclusion: Europe’s Moral Geometry

The EU’s selective application of legal norms, its rhetorical restraint in the face of overwhelming atrocities, and its failure to uphold the core principles of its own agreements, expose a dangerous pattern of legal relativism masked by technocratic neutrality.

This is not simply a question of diplomatic caution — it is a question of ethical integrity.

The Palestinian case is not asking for exceptional treatment. It is asking for equal treatment — under the very laws, agreements, and principles that Europe claims to defend.

If Article 2 means nothing, if ICC cooperation is optional, and if the vocabulary of justice changes with the flag — then what remains of the EU’s moral credibility in global affairs?

And more urgently: How many more deaths will it take before the word "genocide" enters Europe’s diplomatic lexicon?