By: Scott M. Feltman
For decades, the United States and Europe have presented themselves as partners bound by democratic values, the rule of law, and a shared commitment to combating terrorism. But as antisemitism rises globally and the West faces growing instability, many Americans are increasingly asking whether Europe still applies those principles consistently when it comes to its democratic allies.
The European Union insists its latest sanctions package is about combating “extremism.” But by placing Israeli citizens and organizations alongside Hamas figures under the same punitive framework, the EU has crossed into something far more dangerous: moral equivalence masquerading as diplomacy.
Most recently, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas announced what she described as a “deadlock-breaking” agreement tied to escalating tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To Brussels, this may look like balance. To many Americans and supporters of Israel, it looks like the collapse of moral clarity.
Hamas is not a controversial political movement. It is a genocidal terrorist organization responsible for the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre, hostage taking, rape, torture, and the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust. Israeli citizens living in disputed territories, regardless of one’s views on settlements, are not remotely equivalent to internationally designated terrorists.
Yet that distinction appears to be eroding in parts of Europe.
The deeper problem is not only the sanctions themselves. It is the precedent they create.
The EU is effectively blacklisting individuals and organizations without criminal trials, judicial rulings, or transparent evidentiary standards. Assets can be frozen, financial activity restricted, and reputations permanently damaged through administrative decree rather than due process.
In democratic societies, guilt is supposed to be determined in courtrooms, not political institutions.
Particularly controversial is the targeting of groups such as Amana, an organization involved in developing Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. The EU treats the legal status of those communities as though it is fully settled under international law. It is not.
The status of the territories captured by Israel in 1967 has been debated by legal scholars and diplomats for decades. Critics of the EU’s position argue that Judea and Samaria was not the recognized sovereign territory of any state prior to Israeli control and therefore constitutes disputed territory rather than “occupied” territory in the conventional legal sense.
Others point to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish settlement rights west of the Jordan River. One may disagree politically with settlement expansion while still acknowledging that the legal debate is far more complicated than many European officials publicly admit.
By treating that dispute as legally closed and sanctioning organizations accordingly, the EU is not acting as a neutral broker. It is imposing a political conclusion while bypassing the negotiations it routinely claims to support.
The EU’s selective outrage becomes even harder to defend when compared with its treatment of Palestinian leadership.
While Brussels announces targeted sanctions against Israeli citizens, it simultaneously continues extensive financial engagement with the Palestinian Authority despite longstanding criticism over the PA’s so-called “Martyrs Fund,” often referred to as “Pay for Slay.”
The Palestinian Authority is expected to spend an estimated $315 million in 2026 on the program, which provides monthly stipends to imprisoned terrorists and the families of attackers killed while carrying out attacks. Critics have argued for years that the system effectively incentivizes terrorism by tying payments in part to the severity of attacks and the length of prison sentences.
That contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult for many supporters of Israel to ignore.
The EU claims its sanctions target those “giving a tailwind to terrorism.” Yet critics argue that by continuing massive financial engagement with the Palestinian Authority while the Martyrs Fund remains intact, Europe is indirectly helping sustain a system that rewards violence rather than dismantling it.
The imbalance becomes even more striking when examining who the EU publicly defines as victims.
The EU recently announced a €6 million (about $6.96 million) initiative specifically aimed at supporting Palestinian victims of what it describes as “settler violence,” including protective equipment and financial assistance.
But where is the equivalent European program for Israeli victims of terrorism? Where is the dedicated EU fund for families shattered by suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, rocket attacks, or the atrocities of Oct. 7?
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused the EU of attempting to “dictate political perceptions” through financial pressure. Whether one agrees fully with that characterization or not, Europe’s approach is raising growing concerns about consistency, fairness, and credibility.
For Americans, the implications extend far beyond Israel alone. If democratic allies can be politically blacklisted without due process while terrorist-incentivizing systems continue receiving international engagement, then the issue is no longer simply about Middle East policy. It is about whether the West, including the U.S., is still willing to apply its democratic principles consistently when confronting terrorism and defending its allies.
Europe cannot claim moral authority while applying legal standards selectively, blurring the line between democratic allies and terrorist organizations, and ignoring the incitement it claims to oppose.
When diplomacy abandons consistency, it stops being justice and becomes politics.
Scott M. Feltman is a preventive security analyst and Executive Vice President of One Israel Fund, specializing in issues related to democratic allies, global security, and rising antisemitism.
