On Tuesday (8 September), a core group of eight EU member states, led by France and Spain, together with Britain, Canada, Norway and Iceland, crossed an important threshold in international diplomacy: moving from verbal condemnation of illegal Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank to imposing or promoting specific economic measures against Israeli settlements. The move increases pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu's government, just weeks before Israel's 27 October elections, in which Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival.
The key question at EU level is whether this core group will expand and eventually produce a common European position on economic measures. Other member states, including Belgium and the Netherlands, have already moved in the direction of taking action. Cyprus and Greece, however, remain outside this dynamic diplomatic process for the time being.
Britain's policy shift
The most notable political shift, after France, is being expressed by 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 these words mean nothing if we do not back them with action.”
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband was unequivocal, telling the House of Commons that the “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in parts of the occupied West Bank” was being carried out by “illegal settler terrorists”. He also highlighted the enormous human cost of the war in Gaza.
From words to action
This is the essential element of the shift taking place in Europe. Paradoxically, it amounts to the application of a principle that has been at the heart of Cyprus's foreign policy for decades: upholding international law and UN resolutions, rejecting double standards and, when these are violated, taking specific measures and imposing sanctions.
This is precisely where Nicosia falls into contradiction. President Nikos Christodoulides, who promotes his European credentials, behaves as though he does not recognise the shift among important 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 the issue is measures against Israeli policy in the West Bank, it feels no need to align itself. There is no talk of ethnic cleansing or settler terrorists. The comparison with Britain is particularly ironic. Britain is one of the three Guarantor Powers in Cyprus, and Cypriots frequently accuse it of “turning a blind eye” to international law when its interests are at stake. Today, however, it is London that is saying that words mean nothing without action.
And Nicosia is doing the opposite.
The response
The response came, in a sense, just two days after the move by the “12”. Christodoulides invited Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Cyprus to “deepen the strategic partnership between the two countries at all levels”. At a moment when major Western countries are seeking to increase the political and economic cost of Israeli policy in the West Bank, Nicosia chose to send precisely the opposite message: relations with Israel not only remain unaffected, but are being deepened.
The timing matters. Netanyahu himself is under intense international pressure, and the elections are approaching.
Christodoulides wants to strengthen, for political and public-consumption purposes, his narrative of Cyprus's regional role. Herzog reciprocated: he described him as a “very good friend” of Israel, spoke of a “unique partnership” between the two countries and proposed a meeting between the presidents of Israel, Cyprus and Lebanon, even suggesting Cyprus as the venue, as a contribution to regional peace.
It sounds appealing. But who exactly has the real mediating role today? In Lebanon, it is the United States that is seeking to shape an arrangement under which Israel would withdraw and the Lebanese state would assume full responsibility for 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 a new regional escalation.
Netanyahu's political future
Even the Trump–Netanyahu relationship is no longer what it once was. The war with Iran is becoming an unbearable burden for the American President, just months before the November midterm elections. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll puts Trump's approval rating at 33%, a historic low across his two presidential terms, while only 31% of Americans now support military action against Iran.
Netanyahu, therefore, is no longer an unqualified asset for everyone in the West. For an increasing number of governments, he is becoming part of the problem: in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and the regional confrontation with Iran. And soon he will be judged by Israeli voters themselves at the ballot box.
This is precisely what makes Cyprus's position even more perplexing. At a time when important European partners are reassessing their relationship with the Netanyahu government, Nicosia continues to portray Israel as a “like-minded country” on issues of security, stability and cooperation.
Andy Burnham put the issue in terms that go beyond the Palestinian question: we want our citizens and the world to know what we stand for.
What does Cyprus stand for today? In foreign policy, states do not, of course, act solely on the basis of morality. They act according to interests, balances of power and leverage. But for a small state whose very existence rests on international law, cynicism and double standards have their limits. They almost never serve the weaker party, particularly when “hard” interests overwhelm it.
