On Gaza, the European Union confirms its irrelevance

 After a dismal performance in negotiations with Trump on tariffs, which were not yet formally concluded and even prompted renewed threats from the US president, the European Union has again suffered a negative performance in international public opinion. Not even the most unbridled arrogance on the part of Netanyahu, who declared his intention to occupy and then annex the Gaza Strip, has elicited even a small reaction from Brussels. We have witnessed weakness pitted against strength, the choice not to react to such brazenness. Yet international pressure, with the desire to recognize Palestine as a state, could have represented an opportunity to demonstrate some vitality, especially since, at this level, Palestinian recognition is little more than a demonstration of the desire to put pressure on Israel, with no immediate practical effect other than media attention. Yet silence reigns within the EU institutions, and even the EU's High Representative for Foreign Policy, Kaja Kallas, has not commented. Her last message on the social network X condemns Hamas and calls for the release of the hostages. Amid the general silence of the European Union's governing bodies, what shines through is a desire not to interfere with an Israeli government that represents the furthest thing from European values. The carnage and genocide perpetrated by Tel Aviv, through weapons and hunger used as weapons, should automatically scandalize every democracy and trigger isolation and economic and political sanctions against Israel, at least as much as those rightly applied to Russia. What are the differences in the suffering imposed on the civilian population? It is not enough that one is a recognized state and the other a territory without unanimous recognition; the suffering of people imposed by invading regimes should arouse the same sentiments. Conversely, while this is happening in increasingly large segments of the population, the same is not true for governments and institutions, especially those of the European Union. This attitude can only result in the delegitimization of their roles and a perception of the uselessness of collegial bodies and, ultimately, of the Union itself. It is necessary to understand the reasons holding Brussels hostage even in the face of such a monstrosity. While one can understand the natural reluctance of states like Germany, which, moreover, has shown openness to recognizing Palestine and condemning Israel (and for this has been accused of Nazism), to criticize the Jewish state, the attitude of a supranational organization like the Union is less comprehensible; especially since condemning the current Israeli government would certainly not be subject to anti-Semitic criticism, but would invoke international law, which should be universally recognized. One reason could lie in Brussels's completely subservient attitude to Washington, a sort of concern not to antagonize Trump, who fully supports Tel Aviv's actions, so as not to spark conflict with the US and thus preserve a sort of preferential channel in relations with the White House. However, as has now been established, this appears to be merely an illusion, believed only by Europe. There is a fear of compromising economic relations, those that imposed the tariffs, or perhaps military relations, where the Atlantic Alliance is increasingly challenged by the US president. These reasons already appear shaky if these relations were truly strong, but in the current state of affairs they prove to be mere unreliable excuses. The problem is that within the Union there are no clear political rules, nor even unequivocal directions capable of deriving from the founding principles of a united Europe, which, in fact, is not united. Brussels's excessively limited sovereignty, the absence of a unified foreign policy, and the lack of a common armed force represent insurmountable obstacles to becoming a significant global player. Furthermore, the failure to abolish absolute majority voting, rather than the principle of relative majority voting, allows parasitic states to excessively influence the life of the Union, which remains a union based solely on economics but incapable of producing internal progress in the political sphere and therefore condemned to irrelevance.