Europe’s sanctions are not enough to liberate Palestine

The sanctions on Israeli settlements announced by 12 countries, including France, Spain, the UK, and Canada, carry the potential to create concrete costs for the deepening occupation. These decisions also mean that a principle European governments have long expressed only at the level of rhetoric is being put into practice for the first time. We are seeing the message that opposing the expansion of settlements must also have a counterpart in trade relations with Israel being put into practice. However, it is necessary to question why the gap between Europe’s principles and its policies is still so wide. The restrictions announced by the 12 countries were declared in the name of “preserving the two-state solution,” but there is a serious mismatch between the urgency emphasized and the timeline on which this step was taken. These measures may be useful in terms of exerting pressure on Israel, but the absence of a realistic political perspective does not offer much hope that the sanctions step will produce the desired result.

THE REALITY OF A PALESTINIAN STATE

European states see the Palestinian state as a possibility endangered by the expansion of settlements, but the problem goes far beyond a future danger. Palestinians have long been living in a reality where their territorial integrity has been crippled and their political and economic life is controlled from outside and left at Israel’s mercy. Preserving the possibility of statehood as a genuine prospect requires far more than deterring the next settlement construction project. A viable and realistic strategy is needed to change the conditions that increasingly make Palestine’s national sovereignty unattainable.

If the ban on imports from Israeli settlements is seriously enforced, it could limit the commercial returns of settlement activity. Restrictions on financing and construction services could also make participation in such activities costly. The fact that the measures announced by the UK cover these services will enable the decision’s impact to extend beyond supermarket shelves. However, commercial restrictions cannot substitute for a strategy that takes into account fundamental issues such as Palestine’s borders, the status of East Jerusalem, territorial integrity, refugees, freedom of movement, and Palestinians having a say over their natural resources. It is also unclear how the sanctions will serve the reality of a Palestinian state.

THE ‘TWO-STATE SOLUTION’

The impasse of the “preserving the two-state solution” rhetoric begins precisely here. The purpose of a Palestinian state should be to provide Palestinians with freedom, security, and the ability to govern themselves. However, diplomatic processes to date have consistently focused not on establishing this state but on keeping alive the possibility of its establishment, turning the promised future into a justification for postponing today’s rights. While Palestinians await a political horizon, their daily lives remain bound to conditions over which they have no say. Although the two-state solution has become a constantly repeated political formulation, how to reach this future remains vague.

It is impossible to think of the expansion of settlements and the economy built around this reality independently of the political will that sustains it. Israel sees expanding its dominance over these lands as a strategic goal, and for this, it can tolerate commercial losses, turn to alternative markets, or compensate for the losses of companies that incur them. In this case, it can lighten the cost of sanctions and make Europe appear ineffective. If Europe wants to show seriousness, it must demonstrate that it is prepared to counter Israel’s strategy—now a matter of state policy—of ensuring that a sovereign Palestinian state is never established. The way to do this goes beyond commercial sanctions and requires adopting a full and sustained effort of pressure on Israel until a Palestinian state is established.

If Europe cannot answer what its next steps will be, and moreover sends Israel the message behind the scenes that these sanctions will not be serious, then the sanctions efforts cannot be expected to produce political results. Limited sanctions turn into excuses these states can hide behind to avoid taking further steps. In diplomatic statements, harsh messages are delivered, telling of a new era beginning, yet the political structure that enables settlements to expand and become permanent continues its activities with an additional commercial cost. Saying that Europe’s sanctions are insufficient and late is not the same as claiming they will be useless. However, it is obvious that the cost produced by the sanctions will not bring back the lives, property, and possessions Palestinians have lost today.

Israel’s retaliation has already shown the political pressure Europe will face. Israel not only demanded that the UK close its consulate in East Jerusalem but also announced that it would end the training it provides to Palestinian security forces. Israel’s steps against the sanctioning countries could have an effect that reduces external support for the Palestinians. These 12 countries need to calculate how they will respond to Israel’s retaliatory steps, which amount to a challenge, and must have an effective policy of raising the stakes. It is certain that the usual condemnations and ‘concern’ statements will not produce results. Statements such as that Palestinians have the right to establish a state or that the two-state solution is supported no longer carry any meaning; a comprehensive political strategy is needed to bring these into reality. The fact that Europe, despite having the capacity to do this, still lacks a strong political will suggests that sanctions against settlements will remain a limited step.

Yeni Safak / September 11, 2026