Earlier this month, several European leaders attended the Sharm el-Sheikh “peace summit,” but their presence amounted to little more than a photo opportunity alongside United States President Donald Trump. Their diminished role reflects how Europe is increasingly seen – particularly by Israel – as diplomatically irrelevant and politically toxic.
This marginalization is not accidental.
It stems from the perception that many European leaders pursue policies that are ineffective, if not overtly hostile. This sentiment is echoed in the remarks of an anonymous European official, who told a major media outlet: “Our pressure is still important. If we want to lift all the pressure, then Israel needs to deliver” – a statement that underscores the confrontational and condescending tone adopted by some European governments.
As Gaza and the region enter a new phase – all surviving Israeli hostages have been returned, and, assuming the ceasefire holds, the focus shifts to reconstruction and the political future – it is crucial to revisit Europe’s political path over the past two years, which led to its curtailed influence.
In the hours and days after the October 7 atrocities, there was a brief moment when it seemed that European leaders might finally confront the truth: that decades of enabling indoctrination, indulging Palestinian victimhood, and funding the Palestinian Authority’s “Pay for Slay” policies helped pave the way for the disaster.
Policies culminate in 2025 recognition of a Palestinian state
THESE POLICIES culminated in the 2025 recognition of a Palestinian state by a number of leaders, a move that effectively rewarded Hamas for its violence and the PA for its silence. Consequently, two years after the October 7 massacre, Europe finds itself in a paradoxical situation: Despite being the main financial backer of the Palestinians, it still has no seat at the negotiating table in the Middle East.
One main reason is that European diplomacy is not based on strategic clarity, but on an overacted moral outrage that is increasingly being manipulated.
From the earliest hours following the October 7 attack, a parallel offensive to the genocidal war against Israel was launched: the battle over the narrative, led by the influential and highly politicized NGO network.
At the forefront of this campaign were Palestinian organizations such as Al-Haq, Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and Al Mezan, all linked to the terror group People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), along with their allies in Europe – notably, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). These NGOs are funded by the European Commission or EU member states, and have been described as “key partners” by the EU’s Special Representative for Human Rights.
These groups, also recently sanctioned by the US, citing the lobbying and lawfare campaigns against Israel in the ICC – launched a flood of accusations such as “genocide” and “starvation as a weapon,” and calling for international intervention including an arms embargo to deprive Israel of self-defense means.
Even before the Israeli victims were buried, these organizations were already shaping a false version of events meant to invert the roles of aggressor and victim.
This offensive would not have succeeded without the ideological readiness of European elites to submit to it. Activist media, academic, and political circles marketed false images of the anti-terror war, leading European leaders (starting with Emmanuel Macron) to abandon strategic clarity and adopt false morality, driven by emotion and electoral calculus. Rather than defending a responsible position that reflected reality, they chose to return to the 77-year-old victimhood narrative promoted by the NGO industry and UN officials.
Restarting funding to the Palestinian Authority
THIS SURRENDER resulted in a series of damning policies, including restarting funding to the PA without binding conditions and oversight; signing agreements without serious demands for educational reform to end incitement; or a halt to “Pay for Slay” – the practice of paying salaries to convicted terrorists.
In addition, the leaders acquiesced to the demonizing practice of excluding Israeli companies from international trade fairs, and threatening Israel with economic sanctions.
This process reached a crescendo with hasty recognition of a fictitious Palestinian state in September 2025, even while Hamas still held power and hostages were held in Gaza – and still remains a damaging force.
Paradoxically – and undoubtedly because of this posture – Europe has disqualified itself as a relevant diplomatic actor, as highlighted in the Sharm el-Sheikh summit.
The real negotiations were led by the United States, backed by Arab and Muslim states. As a result of Europe’s diplomacy of posturing, Israeli distrust remains strong – while other regional players prioritize stability and security over rhetoric.
Now, as discussions increasingly focus on the reconstruction of Gaza, a key question arises: Can Europe undertake the basic changes necessary to make a substantial contribution to stability, beginning with enforcing long-overdue oversight on aid?
To do so, Europe must attach clear conditions to its assistance – demanding not only more words but implementation of concrete reforms that promote Palestinian deradicalization and ensure financial transparency.
Without such measures, nothing will change, and performative morality will continue, characterized by diplomacy that is weak, incoherent, and reflects narrow ideological slogans.
As Charles Kushner, the US ambassador to France, recently wrote:
“While others moralized, America mobilized. While others performed outrage, America performed diplomacy.”
Europe has the means to regain its influence. But first, it must choose to face reality.
Olga Deutsch is vice president at NGO Monitor, and Vincent Chebat is senior researcher.