On September 4, 2025, a speech delivered by European Commission Vice-President Teresa Ribera at the renowned Sciences Po university in Paris sent ripples through the diplomatic and political corridors of Europe. In her address, Ribera did not mince words, stating, "The genocide in Gaza exposes Europe’s failure to act and speak with one voice even as protest spread across European cities and 14 United Nations Security Council members called for an immediate ceasefire." According to dpa, this bold characterization marked one of the most direct and high-profile uses of the term "genocide" by a senior European official in reference to Israel’s ongoing military actions in the Gaza Strip.
But the fallout was swift. The very next day, on September 5, 2025, the European Commission moved quickly to clarify its official stance. Spokeswoman Paula Pinho, addressing reporters in Brussels, stated emphatically, "It’s not up to the Commission to judge on this question and definition, but really for the courts." She added, "And there has been no College decision on this particular subject. That’s what I can say." The message was clear: while individual members of the Commission might express personal views, these do not constitute the position of the European Union’s executive body.
Backing up Pinho’s point, another Commission spokesperson, Anouar El Anouni, elaborated on the legal complexities at play. "Establishing whether international crimes, including genocide, have been committed, is the competence of national courts as well as international courts and tribunals, which may have jurisdiction. And the legal qualification of such an act, an act of genocide, does require the proper establishment of facts and a finding of law," El Anouni explained, as reported by dpa and other agencies. In short, the Commission was determined to distance itself from Ribera’s remarks, making it plain that the question of genocide is not for politicians or bureaucrats to decide, but for the courts.
The definition of genocide itself is a weighty one, carrying significant legal and moral implications. According to the United Nations Convention, genocide refers to "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." The term’s application has historically been reserved for some of the gravest atrocities in human history, and its invocation in the context of the Gaza conflict has sparked fierce debate.
Israel, for its part, categorically rejects the accusation of genocide. Officials in Jerusalem have repeatedly asserted that their military actions are aimed at neutralizing security threats and defending their citizens, not at targeting any group for destruction. The charge of genocide, they argue, is both factually unfounded and politically motivated. This view is echoed by many of Israel’s allies, who warn that such language risks inflaming tensions and undermining prospects for peace.
Ribera’s remarks, however, have found resonance among certain segments of European civil society and political life. Protests have erupted across major European cities in recent weeks, with demonstrators calling for a stronger response from EU institutions and member states. Many have expressed frustration at what they perceive as Europe’s hesitancy or inability to take decisive action in the face of mounting civilian casualties and humanitarian distress in Gaza. The fact that 14 members of the United Nations Security Council have called for an immediate ceasefire only adds to the sense of urgency and moral pressure.
The European Commission’s attempt to walk a careful line—acknowledging the gravity of the situation while refraining from making legal judgments—reflects the broader challenges facing the EU as it navigates a deeply divided international landscape. On one hand, there are those who demand a more forceful condemnation of Israel and greater support for Palestinian civilians. On the other, there are voices urging caution, warning against premature or politically charged accusations that could further complicate an already volatile situation.
The internal tensions within the EU are not new. The bloc has long struggled to forge a unified foreign policy, particularly on issues as contentious as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Member states differ widely in their historical relationships with Israel and the Arab world, their domestic political dynamics, and their interpretations of international law. The result is often a patchwork of statements, some more forceful than others, and a perception—fair or not—that Europe lacks coherence and resolve on the world stage.
For legal experts, the Commission’s position is not surprising. The process of determining whether genocide has occurred is painstaking and complex, requiring exhaustive investigation, the collection and analysis of evidence, and ultimately, adjudication by competent legal authorities. The International Criminal Court and other tribunals have set a high bar for such findings, mindful of the term’s gravity and the consequences that flow from its use. As El Anouni noted, "the legal qualification of such an act, an act of genocide, does require the proper establishment of facts and a finding of law." Without such a process, any declaration risks being dismissed as political rhetoric rather than a binding judgment.
Yet for many activists and observers, the legal nuances are cold comfort in the face of daily reports of violence and suffering. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza—marked by civilian casualties, displacement, and destruction—has fueled calls for immediate action and accountability. Ribera’s speech, whatever its official status, tapped into this wellspring of frustration and impatience. Her words have become a rallying cry for those who believe that Europe must do more than issue statements of concern or defer to international courts.
Meanwhile, the Commission’s response highlights the delicate balance it must strike between respecting legal processes and responding to the moral demands of the moment. By emphasizing that "it’s not up to the Commission to judge on this question and definition, but really for the courts," as Paula Pinho put it, the EU executive seeks to avoid both overstepping its mandate and appearing indifferent to the suffering unfolding in Gaza.
As the conflict drags on and the debate over terminology intensifies, the European Union finds itself at a crossroads. The challenge is not merely one of legal interpretation, but of political will and moral clarity. Can Europe speak with one voice on matters of such consequence? Or will it remain mired in internal divisions and procedural caution?
For now, the Commission’s stance is clear: the determination of genocide is a matter for the courts, not politicians. But as protests continue and the humanitarian crisis deepens, the pressure on Europe’s leaders to move beyond words and take concrete action is unlikely to subside anytime soon.
