EU’s staggering hypocrisy over human rights

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has every right to condition the EU’s relations with any other country or bloc on respect for human rights. That, of course, would hold true if she genuinely cared about such values herself.

In response to last week’s signing of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran — intended to bring an end to a destructive war — Von der Leyen declared that the EU does not intend to lift its sanctions on Tehran.

Speaking ahead of the G7 Summit, she firmly conditioned any diplomatic thawing on domestic changes within the Islamic Republic. “The principle of sanctions is that we need real change on the ground before we can think about lifting them,” she stated, adding: “As long as there is no behavioral change, you cannot lift the sanctions because of human rights violations.”

Viewed in isolation, the bloc’s position might appear principled, even commendable. In its broader geopolitical context, however, it exposes a staggering level of hypocrisy.

In fact, the EU’s duplicity was laid bare on the very same day. During a Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, the bloc’s foreign ministers were unable to take a unified stand on imposing sanctions on extremist Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

It is tempting to conclude that, for many Western leaders, some human rights matter more than others

Dr. Ramzy Baroud

The discussion itself would not have taken place at all had it not been for the persistent efforts of Spain and Ireland, which have repeatedly urged the bloc to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement over Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. The initiative failed because the EU remains deeply divided, constrained by the requirement of unanimity on foreign policy and repeatedly blocked by pro-Israel governments.

While the EU continues to engage Israel — providing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist coalition with desperately needed political and economic lifelines — European publics have increasingly moved in the opposite direction. Recent polling across numerous countries has revealed an increasingly unfavorable view of both Israel and Netanyahu. Across Europe, mass demonstrations, consumer boycotts, campus mobilizations and divestment campaigns reflect the widening gap between public opinion and official policy.

This reality appears entirely irrelevant to Von der Leyen, who remains preoccupied with the human rights records of states viewed as Western adversaries. Such concern is not motivated by solidarity with victims but by the desire to maintain political leverage that can be invoked when convenient and ignored when necessary.

Lest we forget, Von der Leyen was among the first Western leaders to visit Israel following the events of Oct. 7, 2023, arriving in Tel Aviv six days later. Standing alongside Israeli leaders, she offered unconditional backing, declaring that “Europe stands with Israel.” She did so as Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to a devastating military assault that would soon claim tens of thousands of lives.

Although her rhetoric became somewhat more cautious as international legal institutions began investigating Israel for genocide and pursuing war crimes cases against its leaders, her fundamental political alignment never truly changed.

For anyone to believe that Von der Leyen has suddenly discovered that human rights should occupy center stage in any responsible foreign policy is simply delusional. This is especially true given how restrained she remained, both in terms of language and action, as the US-Israeli war on Iran expanded into a regional catastrophe that should never have been allowed to unfold.

With Brussels’ influence steadily shrinking, moral posturing has become a substitute for meaningful diplomacy

Dr. Ramzy Baroud

None of that matters to Von der Leyen, of course, since such immense human suffering does not neatly fit within her geopolitical priorities.

It is tempting to conclude that, for Von der Leyen and many other Western leaders, some human rights matter more than others. Yet even that assessment grants too much credibility to their position, because it assumes that human rights are the actual basis of policy. More often than not, they are merely invoked when politically convenient.

Even the Catholic Church appears to be moving away from this selective moral framework. Since his election in May 2025, Pope Leo has repeatedly emphasized a vision of “just peace” over the traditional doctrine of “just war,” warning against the use of moral and religious language to legitimize military aggression. During his Palm Sunday homily earlier this year, he stressed that “God rejects the prayers of those who wage war” — a direct challenge to the normalization of violence by political leaders.

But Von der Leyen cannot help herself. The instrumentalization of human rights has long been a staple of Western foreign policy, despite mounting evidence that such commitments are rarely applied consistently. In that sense, the EU appears increasingly bankrupt — not only morally but politically as well.

The war involving Iran, the subsequent US-Iran agreement and the major geopolitical shifts surrounding both unfolded largely without meaningful European involvement. Reduced to the role of spectator — or occasional cheerleader — the EU exerted little influence over events, underscoring its diminishing relevance in Middle Eastern and global affairs.

This helps explain why Von der Leyen resorted to familiar rhetoric about human rights in Iran while remaining largely silent on Israel’s devastating actions in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere in the region. With Brussels’ influence steadily shrinking, moral posturing has become a substitute for meaningful diplomacy.

Will the EU continue along this path of growing irrelevance or will it finally heed the views of its own citizens, challenge Israel’s impunity and pursue a foreign policy genuinely independent of Washington? The answer may determine whether it can reclaim political relevance — or continue its slide into long-term decline.

• Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His latest book, “Before the Flood,” was published by Seven Stories Press. His website is ramzybaroud.net. X: @RamzyBaroud