In a week marked by high-stakes diplomacy and mounting public scrutiny, the European Union finds itself at the center of two of the world’s most pressing crises: the ongoing war in Gaza and the protracted conflict in Ukraine. Leaders in Brussels have been grappling with their roles, responsibilities, and, increasingly, accusations of double standards as they attempt to navigate complex political, legal, and moral terrain.
On October 22, 2025, The Guardian published a searing analysis by Natalie Tocci, who accused the European Union of complicity in the Gaza war and inaction in the face of what she described as Israeli crimes against Palestinian civilians. Tocci wrote, “Europe and the U.S. on Gaza atrocities: A silence that smells of complicity.” She argued that while thousands of Palestinian civilians—including women and children—have been killed in relentless Israeli attacks, Western leaders have been notably silent, lending, in her view, “a degree of legitimacy to these crimes.”
Tocci’s criticism did not stop at silence. She highlighted a glaring contradiction in European policy: while the EU has imposed strict sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, it has refrained from even symbolic pressure on Israel. “Europe is an actor that, instead of playing an active role in stopping the atrocities, has used the ceasefire as an excuse to shirk its ethical and legal responsibilities,” Tocci wrote. She emphasized that ongoing economic, military, and political cooperation with Israel effectively makes European governments complicit in alleged war crimes.
This stance has not gone unnoticed by the European public, particularly among younger citizens. Tocci observed a growing sense of anger and disillusionment, which is deepening the gap between European governments and their people. The analyst further criticized the EU’s reliance on U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan for Gaza—a plan that includes a ceasefire, the release of prisoners, and humanitarian aid—as a convenient “escape route” allowing Europe to avoid imposing punitive measures on Israel. “By relying on this plan, Europe has avoided imposing punitive measures on the Israeli regime and has even failed to implement the European Commission’s modest proposals to sanction extremist Israeli ministers,” Tocci concluded.
Meanwhile, EU officials have been eager to assert their desire for a more active diplomatic role in the Middle East—provided certain conditions are met. Speaking to Euronews on October 24, the EU Commissioner for Crisis Management and Preparedness made it clear: “Hamas is not an interlocutor for us, it’s a terrorist group.” The Commissioner insisted that any two-state solution must exclude Hamas, and called on Israel to swiftly implement the second phase of the ceasefire agreement by allowing 600 trucks per day to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. “We are not there yet. And so we ask the Israeli authorities to keep their promises,” she said.
The EU Foreign Affairs Council has recently put a partial suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement on the table, following a review that indicated potential breaches of human rights obligations by Israel. The Commissioner noted, “With this balanced approach, we also need to be sure that our rules and principles are respected.” The EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner and the primary international donor to the Palestinian Authority, a fact that underscores its leverage—and its responsibility—in the region.
Turning to Ukraine, the EU faces a different but equally complex challenge. On October 23, leaders met in Brussels to discuss using approximately 140 billion euros of frozen Russian state assets to support Ukraine’s military and budgetary needs. Most of these assets are held in Belgium, whose Prime Minister, Bart De Wever, raised significant legal and technical concerns. “I am just small and poor Belgium; the only thing I can do is point out where the problems are and gently seek solutions to the underlying problem,” De Wever told reporters after the summit. He warned that without strong guarantees from other EU states to share responsibility if Russia demands compensation, he would do everything possible “politically and legally, to stop this decision.”
The EU froze around 200 billion euros of Russian Central Bank assets after Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. So far, only the interest generated by these funds has been used to support Ukraine. The proposed scheme would see the EU borrow funds from the company Euroclear, giving this money to Ukraine as a loan to be repaid only if Russia compensates for the damages it has caused. However, the summit’s conclusions, approved by all member states except Hungary, were watered down due to Belgium’s objections. The final text invited the Commission to present “options for financial support” for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027, postponing a concrete decision until the next summit in December.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who attended the summit as a guest, praised the meeting, saying it “brought good results.” On the X platform, he wrote, “The European Union guaranteed that financial assistance to Ukraine will continue not only next year, but also in 2027. This is an important unanimous decision. We have secured political support for the maximum use of frozen Russian assets to protect ourselves from Russian aggression.”
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a supporter of the asset-loan scheme, expressed optimism that the European Commission would present viable options before the next summit. “We are increasing pressure to get the Russian side to accept talks, so that the guns fall silent in Ukraine once and for all,” Merz said.
Yet, Russia has made its position clear. On October 23, Moscow warned that any action involving its assets without consent is “invalid from the point of view of international and contractual law” and would “incite painful responses.” The legal and diplomatic tightrope the EU must walk is apparent, as is the growing pressure from both within and outside the bloc to act decisively.
Belgium’s concerns are not trivial. The EU Commissioner for Crisis Management and Preparedness underscored the need for legal security: “We don’t have an example to follow, and it needs to be secured from a legal point of view. That’s the only thing, that’s the only point,” she said. “I think it’s just a question of time.” The main worry is the risk of Belgium facing legal repercussions if Russia demands its assets back and sanctions are eventually lifted. “We just need to secure the legal aspect to be sure that Belgium is not going to be brought in front of a court of justice later on,” the Commissioner added.
As the EU attempts to balance its values with realpolitik, its actions—or inactions—are watched closely by citizens, allies, and adversaries alike. Whether in Gaza or Ukraine, the bloc’s choices in the coming months will test not only its diplomatic agility but also the credibility of its commitment to justice and human rights.
For now, Europe stands at a crossroads, facing demands for accountability and decisive action on multiple fronts. The world is watching to see whether the EU can live up to its ideals—or if, as critics warn, it will continue to be haunted by accusations of complicity and double standards.