On Tuesday, 8 September, a group of eight EU member states led by France and Spain, together with the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway and Iceland, crossed an important threshold in international diplomacy. They moved from verbal condemnation of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank to imposing or advancing specific economic measures against them.
The move increases pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu's government just weeks before Israel's 27 October elections, in which the Prime Minister is fighting for his political survival.
The key question at EU level is whether this group will expand and ultimately produce a common European position on economic measures. Other member states, including Belgium and the Netherlands, have already moved towards taking action.
So far, Cyprus and Greece remain outside this growing diplomatic push.
Britain changes course
The most notable political shift after France has come from Britain, particularly since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister.
The new British Prime Minister said on 9 September: "For years we have called for a two-state solution in the Middle East, but we must recognise that those words mean nothing if we do not back them up with action."
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband was equally categorical, telling the House of Commons that there was "ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the occupied West Bank, carried out by illegal terrorist settlers". He also pointed to the enormous human cost of the war in Gaza.
From words to action
This is the crucial element of the shift now taking place in Europe.
Paradoxically, it amounts to applying a principle that has been at the heart of Cypriot foreign policy for decades: international law and UN resolutions must be upheld, double standards must be rejected and, when international law is violated, concrete measures and sanctions should follow.
This is precisely where Nicosia runs into contradictions.
President Nikos Christodoulides, who regularly promotes his European credentials, appears unwilling to acknowledge the shift among significant European partners towards the Netanyahu government.
When it comes to the Cyprus problem, Cypriot diplomacy calls for Europeans to rally around common positions, for greater EU involvement and even for sanctions against Turkey. Yet when measures targeting Israeli policy in the West Bank are discussed, Nicosia feels no similar need to align itself.
There is no talk of ethnic cleansing or terrorist settlers.
The comparison with Britain carries its own irony. The UK is one of Cyprus's three guarantor powers and has often been accused by Cypriots of turning a blind eye to international law when its interests are served.
Today, however, it is London saying that words mean nothing without action.
Nicosia is doing the opposite.
Nicosia's answer
The answer came, in a sense, just two days after the move by the group of 12 countries.
Christodoulides invited Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Cyprus to discuss "deepening the strategic partnership between the two countries at all levels".
At a time when significant Western countries are seeking to increase the political and economic cost of Israeli policy in the West Bank, Nicosia chose to send a message in precisely the opposite direction: relations with Israel are not merely unaffected, they are being strengthened.
The timing matters. Netanyahu himself is under intense international pressure, with elections approaching.
Christodoulides wants to reinforce his narrative about Cyprus's regional role. Herzog reciprocated, describing him as a "very good friend" of Israel and referring to the two countries' "unique partnership".
He also proposed a meeting between the presidents of Israel, Cyprus and Lebanon, potentially in Cyprus, as a contribution to regional peace.
It sounds attractive. But who actually holds the mediation role today?
In Lebanon, it is the United States that is attempting to shape an arrangement under which Israel would withdraw and the Lebanese state would assume full responsibility over its territory, including the disarmament of Hezbollah.
A central role is being played by US President Donald Trump's special envoy, Tom Barrack, who is seeking to contain Israeli military action in both Lebanon and Syria and prevent another regional escalation.
Netanyahu's political future
Even the Trump-Netanyahu relationship is no longer what it once was.
The war with Iran is becoming a heavy burden for the US President, just months before November's midterm elections. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll puts Trump's approval rating at 33%, the lowest level across his two presidential terms, while only 31% of Americans now support military action against Iran.
Netanyahu, therefore, is no longer regarded across the West as an unquestioned asset.
For a growing number of governments, he is becoming part of the problem: in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and the wider regional confrontation with Iran. Soon, he will face the judgement of Israeli voters at the ballot box.
That makes Cyprus's position even more striking.
At a time when major European partners are reassessing their relationship with Netanyahu's government, Nicosia continues to describe Israel as a "like-minded country" on matters of security, stability and cooperation.
Andy Burnham framed the issue in a way that goes beyond Palestine: we want our citizens and the world to know what we stand for.
What does Cyprus stand for today?
States do not, of course, conduct foreign policy solely on the basis of morality. They act according to interests, balances of power and strategic considerations.
But for a small state whose very existence rests on international law, cynicism and double standards have limits. They almost never serve the weaker party, particularly when hard interests ultimately take precedence.
