BRUSSELS — A coalition of European left parties has launched a call for signatures to force the European Commission to suspend the EU’s association agreement with Israel over Gaza. Despite a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement in October, Israel has kept attacking targets in the Gaza Strip with airstrikes, drones and tanks, prompting the pro-Palestinian movement to renew its calls for the EU to take action against Israel. The coalition — led by France’s La France Insoumise, Spain’s Podemos, Portugal’s Bloco de Esquerda, and Nordic left parties — has launched a European Citizens Initiative titled “Justice for Palestine” calling on the EU executive suspend ties with Israel over its “genocide against the Palestinian population, and its ongoing violations of international law and human rights.” If the initiative receives a million signatures from at least seven EU counties — a likely outcome given the popularity of the issue — the Commission will be forced to state which actions, if any, it will take in respond to the initiative. “The EU pretends everything is back to normal, but we will not turn a blind eye to what is happening in Gaza,” said MEP Manon Aubry, the leader of La France Insoumise, adding the “EU is helping to finance genocide” by not suspending trade relations with Israel. More than 100 children have been killed since the ceasefire agreement was signed in March, UNICEF said Tuesday. The Commission already proposed in November to suspend some parts of the association agreement and to sanction some “extremist ministers” in the cabinet of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But parts of the package were never implemented because they required unanimous approval from EU countries. After the ceasefire was reached the Commission proposed withdrawing the measures; the issue has remained frozen ever since. Foreign ministers from numerous EU countries as well as the U.K., Norway, Canada and Japan sharply criticized an Israeli decision to bar 37 international non-governmental organizations from providing aid to Gaza. The humanitarian situation in the besieged territory remains dire, with many living outdoors in winter weather. Four people were killed on Tuesday when a storm caused buildings that had been damaged in the war to collapse, according to local media.

While U.S. President Donald Trump brashly cited the Monroe Doctrine to explain the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, he didn’t leave it there. He also underscored a crude tenet guiding his foreign adventures: “It’s important to make me happy,” he told reporters. Maduro had failed in that task after shunning a surrender order by Trump — hence, he was plucked in the dead of night by Delta Force commandos from his Caracas compound, and unceremoniously deposited at New York’s Metropolitan Detention Center. Yet despite the U.S. president’s admonishment about needing to be kept happy — an exhortation accompanied by teasing hints of possible future raids on the likes of Cuba, Colombia and Mexico — one continent has stood out in its readiness to defy him. Maduro’s capture has been widely denounced by African governments and the continent’s regional organizations alike. South Africa has been among the most outspoken, with its envoy to the U.N. warning that such actions left unpunished risk “a regression into a world preceding the United Nations, a world that gave us two brutal world wars, and an international system prone to severe structural instability and lawlessness.” Both the African Union, a continent-wide body comprising 54 recognized nations, and the 15-member Economic Community of West African States have categorically condemned Trump’s gunboat diplomacy as well. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni even had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” — a reversal of his 2018 bromance with the U.S. president, when he said he “loves Trump” because of his frankness. Africa’s forthrightness and unity over Maduro greatly contrasts with the more fractured response from Latin America, as well as the largely hedged responses coming from Europe, which is more focused on Trump’s coveting of Greenland.   Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” | Badru Katumba/AFP via Getty Images Fearful of risking an open rift with Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer waited 16 hours after Maduro and his wife were seized before gingerly stepping on a diplomatic tightrope, careful to avoid falling one way or the other. While highlighting his preference for observing international law, he said: “We shed no tears about the end of his regime.” Others similarly avoided incurring Trump’s anger, with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis flatly saying now isn’t the right time to discuss Trump’s muscular methods — a position shared by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. So, why haven’t African leaders danced to the same circumspect European tune? Partly because they have less to lose. Europe still harbors hope it can influence Trump, soften him and avoid an irreparable breach in the transatlantic alliance, especially when it comes to Greenland, suggested Tighisti Amare of Britain’s Chatham House. “With dramatic cuts in U.S. development funds to Africa already implemented by Trump, Washington’s leverage is not as strong as it once was. And the U.S. doesn’t really give much importance to Africa, unless it’s the [Democratic Republic of the Congo], where there are clear U.S. interests on critical minerals,” Amare told POLITICO. “In terms of trade volume, the EU remains the most important region for Africa, followed by China, and with the Gulf States increasingly becoming more important,” she added. Certainly, Trump hasn’t gone out of his way to make friends in Africa. Quite the reverse — he’s used the continent as a punching bag, delivering controversial remarks stretching back to his first term, when he described African nations as “shithole countries.” And there have since been rifts galore over travel bans, steep tariffs and the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is credited with saving millions of African lives over decades. U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a printed article from “American Thinker” while accusing South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa of state-sanctioned violence against white farmers in South Africa. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images In May, Trump also lectured South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office over what he claimed amounted to genocide against white South Africans, at one point ordering the lights be dimmed to show clips of leaders from a South African minority party encouraging attacks on the country’s white population. Washington then boycotted the G20 summit hosted by South Africa in November, and disinvited the country from this year’s gathering, which will be hosted by the U.S. According to Amare, Africa’s denunciation of Maduro’s abduction doesn’t just display concern about Venezuela; in some part, it’s also fed by the memory of colonialism. “It’s not just about solidarity, but it’s also about safeguarding the rules that limit how powerful states can use force against more vulnerable states,” she said. African countries see Trump’s move against Maduro “as a genuine threat to international law and norms that protect the survival of the sovereignty of small states.” Indeed, African leaders might also be feeling their own collars tighten, and worrying about being in the firing line. “There’s an element of self-preservation kicking in here because some African leaders share similarities with the Maduro government,” said Oge Onubogu, director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “In some countries, people on the street and in even civil society have a different take, and actually see the removal of Maduro as a good thing.” The question is, will African leaders be wary of aligning with either Russian President Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping, now that Trump has exposed the impotence of friendship with either by deposing the Venezuelan strongman? According to Onubogu, even before Maduro’s ouster, African leaders understood the world order had changed dramatically, and that we’re back in the era of great power competition. “Individual leaders will make their own specific calculations based on what’s in their favor and their interests. I wouldn’t want to generalize and say some African countries might step back from engaging with China or Russia. They will play the game as they try to figure out how they can come out on top.”

Mathias Döpfner is chair and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. America and Europe have been transmitting on different wavelengths for some time now. And that is dangerous — especially for Europe. The European reactions to the new U.S. National Security Strategy paper and to Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the Old Continent were, once again, reflexively offended and incapable of accepting criticism: How dare he, what an improper intrusion! But such reactions do not help; they do harm. Two points are lost in these sour responses. First: Most Americans criticize Europe because the continent matters to them. Many of those challenging Europe — even JD Vance or Trump, even Elon Musk or Sam Altman — emphasize this repeatedly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy, scandalized above all by those who have not read it, states explicitly: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” And Trump says repeatedly, literally or in essence, in his interview with POLITICO: “I want to see a strong Europe.” The transatlantic drift is also a rupture of political language. Trump very often simply says what he thinks — sharply contrasting with many European politicians who are increasingly afraid to say what they believe is right. People sense the castration of thought through a language of evasions. And they turn away. Or toward the rabble-rousers. My impression is that our difficult American friends genuinely want exactly what they say they want: a strong Europe, a reliable and effective partner. But we do not hear it — or refuse to hear it. We hear only the criticism and dismiss it. Criticism is almost always a sign of involvement, of passion. We should worry far more if no criticism arrived. That would signal indifference — and therefore irrelevance. (By the way: Whether we like the critics is of secondary importance.) Responding with hauteur is simply not in our interest. It would be wiser — as Kaja Kallas rightly emphasized — to conduct a dialogue that includes self-criticism, a conversation about strengths, weaknesses and shared interests, and to back words with action on both sides. Which brings us to the second point: Unfortunately, much of the criticism is accurate. Anyone who sees politics as more than a self-absorbed administration of the status quo must concede that for decades Europe has delivered far too little — or nothing at all. Not in terms of above-average growth and prosperity, nor in terms of affordable energy. Europe does not deliver on deregulation or debureaucratization; it does not deliver on digitalization or innovation driven by artificial intelligence. And above all: Europe does not deliver on a responsible and successful migration policy. The world that wishes Europe well looked to the new German government with great hope. Capital flows on the scale of trillions waited for the first positive signals to invest in Germany and Europe. For it seemed almost certain that the world’s third-largest economy would, under a sensible, business-minded and transatlantic chancellor, finally steer a faltering Europe back onto the right path. The disappointment was all the more painful. Aside from the interior minister, the digital minister and the economics minister, the new government delivers in most areas the opposite of what had been promised before the election. The chancellor likes to blame the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor blames his own party. And all together they prefer to blame the Americans and their president. Instead of a European fresh start, we see continued agony and decline. Germany still suffers from its National Socialist trauma and believes that if it remains pleasantly average and certainly not excellent, everyone will love it. France is now paying the price for its colonial legacy in Africa and finds itself — all the way up to a president driven by political opportunism — in the chokehold of Islamist and antisemitic networks. In Britain, the prime minister is pursuing a similar course of cultural and economic submission. And Spain is governed by socialist fantasists who seem to take real pleasure in self-enfeeblement and whose “genocide in Gaza” rhetoric mainly mobilizes bored, well-heeled daughters of the upper middle class. Hope comes from Finland and Denmark, from the Baltic states and Poland, and — surprisingly — from Italy. There, the anti-democratic threats from Russia, China and Iran are assessed more realistically. Above all, there is a healthy drive to be better and more successful than others. From a far weaker starting point, there is an ambition for excellence. What Europe needs is less wounded pride and more patriotism defined by achievement. Unity and decisive action in defending Ukraine would be an obvious example — not merely talking about European sovereignty but demonstrating it, even in friendly dissent with the Americans. (And who knows, that might ultimately prompt a surprising shift in Washington’s Russia policy.) That, coupled with economic growth through real and far-reaching reforms, would be a start. After which Europe must tackle the most important task: a fundamental reversal of a migration policy rooted in cultural self-hatred that tolerates far too many newcomers who want a different society, who hold different values, and who do not respect our legal order. If all of this fails, American criticism will be vindicated by history. The excuses for why a European renewal is supposedly impossible or unnecessary are merely signs of weak leadership. The converse is also true: where there is political will, there is a way. And this way begins in Europe — with the spirit of renewal of a well-understood “Europe First” (what else?) — and leads to America. Europe needs America. America needs Europe. And perhaps both needed the deep crisis in the transatlantic relationship to recognize this with full clarity. As surprising as it may sound, at this very moment there is a real opportunity for a renaissance of a transatlantic community of shared interests. Precisely because the situation is so deadlocked. And precisely because pressure is rising on both sides of the Atlantic to do things differently. A trade war between Europe and America strengthens our shared adversaries. The opposite would be sensible: a New Deal between the EU and the U.S. Tariff-free trade as a stimulus for growth in the world’s largest and third-largest economies — and as the foundation for a shared policy of interests and, inevitably, a joint security policy of the free world. This is the historic opportunity that Friedrich Merz could now negotiate with Donald Trump. As Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis!”

LONDON — Former U.K. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn hosted a phone bank Sunday evening for Zohran Mamdani — and swiftly triggered a backlash from the Democratic New York mayoral contender’s political opponents. With New Yorkers heading to the polls Tuesday to choose the successor to incumbent Eric Adams, the left-wing British MP announced in a social media post that he was hitting the phones on behalf of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America campaign group to Get Out The Vote for Mamdani. “Let’s get Zohran over the finish line for a New York that’s affordable for all,” Corbyn — a fellow Arsenal Football Club fan — said as he posed with a North London 4 Zohran shirt. However, the intervention was criticized by Mamdani’s main opponent, the independent candidate Andrew Cuomo, who attacked Corbyn’s controversial tenure as Labour leader. After defying the odds to deprive former Conservative prime minister Theresa May of a majority in 2017, Corbyn took Labour to a calamitous defeat in the 2019 election. His stint at the top of Labour drew frequent criticism of the way the party dealt with allegations of anti-semitism in its own ranks, with Britain’s human rights watchdog finding that Labour under his leadership was “responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.” Corbyn was booted from Labour by its current leader Keir Starmer over his response to that report, and now sits as an independent. “Having Jeremy Corbyn — someone whose party was found to have committed unlawful acts of discrimination against Jewish people under his leadership — phone-banking for Zohran Mamdani says everything you need to know,” Cuomo posted on X. U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon also highlighted Corbyn’s post, appending the message: “Foreign interference in a U.S. election?” There was strong criticism from Republicans when Labour Party activists campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in 2024. Corbyn is not the only European left-winger looking to help with — and learn from — Mamdani’s campaign. French co-Chair of The Left group in the European Parliament Manon Aubry visited New York last week to canvass alongside Mamdani supporters.

BRUSSELS — It’s not a view that many Brussels officials would dare to offer in public, but the European commissioner for crisis management is clear: Benjamin Netanyahu is not a convincing leader to deliver peace in the Middle East. In an interview with POLITICO, Hadja Lahbib set out her “doubts” about the Israeli prime minister, called for continued pressure on Israel, and warned that the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is far from over.  The biggest risk to a lasting peace, she said, is “extremists on both sides.”  There’s Hamas, the perpetrators of the Oct. 7, 2023 atrocity in Israel in which 1,200 people were killed. And on the Israeli side there are “extremists who don’t want to hear about the two-state solution,” she said, referring to the prime minister and members of his Cabinet. “We hear a lot of things that are unacceptable sometimes in the mouth of a responsible person who [is] in the lead of their country.”  Does she think Netanyahu wants peace? “To ask the question is to give an answer,” said Lahbib, who is Belgium’s EU commissioner. “I have some doubts. So far he was able to implement the ceasefire so let’s see what’s going to happen. But we all know that he was against the two-state solution … we used to say in French that ‘only idiots don’t change their minds.’” The commissioner said she wasn’t calling the Israeli leader “an idiot,” but she’s clearly not a fan.   Asked if Israel would need to elect a new leadership that is ready to embrace the two-state solution, with a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, she replied: “That’s a very good question and these are the next steps, the crucial ones.” First must come a ceasefire, then urgently needed aid, “and then a future, give a horizon of hope for these people that are living now in a sea of rubble.”  It’s unusual for politicians to discuss the electoral politics of other countries. Israel is due to hold elections for its 120-member Knesset in October 2026, though some expect the vote to come sooner as Netanyahu no longer has a majority after his coalition partners walked out.  Netanyahu is known as the great survivor of Israeli politics and has vowed to stand for election again. TRUMP’S TRUCE It’s been two weeks since the Trump-inspired ceasefire took effect, with Hamas returning Israel’s living hostages and Israeli forces pulling back. There have been attacks, and deaths, and tensions remain high. Overall, however, the truce has held. For the European Union — the biggest overall aid donor to the Palestinians (Brussels has sent more than €500 million since Oct. 7, 2023) — a political question abides: Can it repair relations with Israel sufficiently to play a role in shaping the future of the Middle East? Lahbib is responsible for the bloc’s vast central humanitarian aid budget and holds a key position in the EU’s response to the conflict. Soon, if the truce continues, attention will turn to the future political and physical reconstruction of Gaza. International allies agree Hamas cannot continue to run the administration of Gaza. It’s been two weeks since the Trump-inspired ceasefire took effect, with Hamas returning Israel’s living hostages and Israeli forces pulling back. | Hassan Jedi/Getty Images Lahbib suggested Palestinians might need their own Nelson Mandela figure, a reference to Marwan Barghouti, a leading name in the Fatah party who has been in an Israeli jail since 2002. He has topped polls as the choice of Palestinians for a potential president.  “Maybe [Barghouti] might be someone who still has credibility and legitimacy for the Palestinian people,” she said. “And if [he’s] the new, let’s say, Nelson Mandela, who’s released and who’s capable to have on one side the trust of his people and to lead the region, his own people, to peace, that will be fantastic.” SANCTIONING ISRAEL Israel’s new ambassador to the EU has said it’s time for Brussels to drop its threats — to apply sanctions and suspend parts of the EU-Israel association agreement — and instead to restore the cooperation funds that have been halted. Lahbib rejects this. “On the contrary,” Lahbib said. “The past two years show us that we need to have leverage.” America made progress on peace precisely because it has leverage, she said. “Sometimes we have to push our own friends.” Asked whether she believes Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, Lahbib said “only a court can say.” She did, though, point to an independent U.N. investigation that found there “is or was a genocide committed,” and referenced the harrowing scenes recounted by aid workers. “What happened there is inhuman and we need to recover our humanity,” she said. The EU wants to be a “player” rather than just a “payer” in the reconstruction of Gaza. But the political situation in Israel means that giving the EU a role on Trump’s so-called board of peace is a complicated decision, she said. “The coalition is fragile and it’s difficult for them to take a decision that leads to peace, a sustainable peace.” Trump and his top team are clearly committed to maintaining the ceasefire, and the U.S. president’s plan is “the end of a nightmare — we have to acknowledge the progress,” Lahbib said. “But this is not the end of the war. For that we need to work on the implementation of the two-state solution. The situation is very fluid and fragile.”

The United States on Friday sanctioned Colombian President Gustavo Petro, the latest escalation of tensions between Washington and Bogotá over drug trafficking and other issues of bilateral importance. In a press release, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the left-wing leader “has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity.” The sanctions target Petro and his associates — chiefly his wife, son and several leading Colombian officials. Bessent added that the Trump administration’s actions are intended to “protect our nation and make clear that we will not tolerate the trafficking of drugs into our nation.” Reacting to the sanctions on social media, Petro said “fighting against drug trafficking for decades with efficiency has brought these measures against me by the government of the country which we help to stop its consumption of cocaine. All a paradox, but no steps back and never on our knees.” It’s highly unusual for the U.S. to sanction the sitting leader of a country, let alone a longtime ally like Colombia. But the imposition of sanctions reflects the continued tensions between Petro and the administration, as the Colombian leader has criticized the U.S. military buildup in the Western Hemisphere in the name of combating drug cartels. Petro also previously criticized the U.S. for supporting what he alleged was an Israeli genocide in Gaza, and called on U.S. officials to face charges for a recent spate of strikes against alleged drug trafficking vessels that he claims killed innocent Colombian fishermen. The administration has made no secret of its frustrations with Colombia’s leader. Earlier this week, Trump cut off U.S. aid to Colombia after Petro attacked the administration’s drug boat strikes. And in September, the U.S. revoked Petro’s visa, citing comments he made at a pro-Palestine protest on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly where he called on U.S. service members to resist Israeli actions in Gaza. Colombia was also recently restored to a U.S. list of countries seen as major hubs of narcotics trafficking. The country’s coca fields have expanded continuously since Petro took power, even as Colombia has pushed back on claims that it has turned a blind eye to a resurgent cocaine industry within its borders. Colombian officials have pointed to the continued interdiction of cocaine. Petro, who as a young man joined a Marxist guerrilla group that fought against the Colombian state during the South American country’s ongoing decades-long armed conflict, has advocated for reaching “total peace” with militant groups that continue to fight against the Colombian state. He’s also downplayed the need for eradicating coca fields and blamed Western elites for driving demand for cocaine, severing cooperation with longtime allies, including the United States. Petro’s son, Nicolás Petro, has been accused of funneling drug cartel funds into his father’s electoral campaign. But there is no evidence that the Colombian president himself is involved with or directly supportive of the cartels the U.S. links him to. The decision was applauded by some of Petro’s Republican critics in Congress, many of whom represent large Colombian American communities and have bashed the leader. “GREAT MOVE, Petro is a problem for Colombia and our hemisphere!” posted Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. Salazar also called Petro a “socialist dictator” in her post on X.

Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, a United Nations independent commission concluded in a report published Tuesday. “The responsibility for these atrocity crimes lies with Israeli authorities at the highest echelons who have orchestrated a genocidal campaign for almost two years now with the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian group in Gaza,” said Navi Pillay, chair of the Commission. The Israel Defense Forces launched a new ground offensive late Monday as it seeks to capture Gaza City after weeks of heavy bombardment, as part of a nearly two-year war on Hamas militants. “Gaza is burning,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said early Tuesday. “The Commission also finds that Israel has failed to prevent and punish the commission of genocide, through failure to investigate genocidal acts and to prosecute alleged perpetrators,” Pillay added. The 72-page report finds that Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. They include killing; serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births. The report is based on the commission’s prior investigations, factual and legal findings about the Israeli attack on Gaza, the conduct and statements of Israeli authorities — and on a examination of underlying genocidal intent and genocide. The Israeli foreign ministry immediately rejected the report, calling it “fake and distorted.” “The report relies entirely on Hamas falsehoods, laundered and repeated by others … Israel categorically rejects this distorted and false report and calls for the immediate abolition of this Commission of Inquiry,” the ministry said in a post on X. The U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel has been investigating war in the area since the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks in which Hamas militants killed some 1,200 people on Israeli soil and took around 250 hostages into Gaza. Since then, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in Israeli airstrikes and shootings in the coastal enclave. Both advocacy group Amnesty International and European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera have called Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. Israel’s ongoing war has led to several European countries announcing they will recognize Palestinian statehood at the U.N. General Assembly later this month.

Luxembourg intends to recognize the state of Palestine, Prime Minister Luc Frieden and Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel told a parliamentary commission on Monday. According to local media, the final decision on the recognition is expected to be taken later this month at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in coordination with several other countries, including France and Belgium. The announcement comes after months of hesitation by Luxembourg’s government and amid growing calls by European leaders for an end to Israel’s war in Gaza, launched after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Local health officials say over 60,000 Palestinians have died in the war. European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera has called Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. Last week, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the EU executive would take a harder stance toward Israel over the war, pausing payments to the country and sanctioning what she called “extremist ministers” and violent settlers. Last Friday, the U.N. General Assembly voted to endorse a declaration that contains “tangible, timebound, and irreversible steps” toward a two-state solution in the region before the body’s Sept. 22 meeting.

Ireland’s public broadcaster announced Thursday that the country will not take part in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest if Israel is participating. Last year’s Eurovision — the international song contest organized by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) — was overshadowed by protests over Israel’s participation in the contest while its military conducts an onslaught in the Gaza Strip. In a statement, RTÉ said that Ireland’s participation in a contest alongside Israel “would be unconscionable given the ongoing and appalling loss of lives in Gaza.” “RTÉ is also deeply concerned by the targeted killing of journalists in Gaza, and the denial of access to international journalists to the territory, and the plight of the remaining hostages,” the statement said. Ireland has been one of the EU’s fiercest critics of Israel’s huge military retaliation following the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023 that killed some 1,200 people, most of them civilians. Israel shuttered its embassy in Dublin last December in protest against Ireland’s decision to recognize Palestinian statehood, as accusations of genocide in Gaza intensified. At a general assembly of the EBU in July, a number of members raised concerns about Israel’s participation in the 2026 competition, which is due to take place in Vienna in May. Slovenia and Spain have also threatened to pull out of the competition if Israel participates. In a statement in July, the EBU said it would hold a “structured and in-depth” dialogue with member broadcasters on how to “manage participation, geopolitical tensions, and how other organizations have approached similar challenges.” The EBU said it would “report back with recommendations this autumn.” A decision on Ireland’s participation in the contest will be finalized once the EBU makes its decision about Israel’s participation, RTÉ said. Israel’s public broadcaster KAN has said that the country is preparing to participate next May in Austria, and “is meticulous in fully complying with the rules of the competition and will continue to do so.”

STRASBOURG ― The EU’s Patriots and The Left groups will both formally demand at midnight on Wednesday that European Commission Ursula von der Leyen face a no-confidence vote. The move from the far-right and far-left groups, just hours after von der Leyen delivered her landmark State of the Union address at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, comes two months after the last no-confidence vote, which underscored the EU’s political fragmentation. The latest motions of censure would mean von der Leyen would need to return to Parliament to justify her position as early as October. “The EU is weaker today than ever due to the persistent failure of the president of the Commission to cope with the most pressing challenges,” the Patriots will say in their motion, obtained by POLITICO. Among other things, they accuse von der Leyen of a lack of transparency and accountability and slam the Mercosur and U.S. trade agreements. The Left group’s motion also criticizes the Commission’s trade policy but places a bigger emphasis in what they say is inaction by the EU executive amid Israel’s war in Gaza, according to the wording, also obtained by POLITICO. Despite von der Leyen announcing in her State of the Union speech that she would propose sanctions against Israeli ministers and settlers, the Left’s group leadership says it is not enough. “You have taken no real sanctions, and your announcement today changes nothing,” The Left’s co-chair, Manon Aubry, told von der Leyen after her speech. “Faced with genocide there can’t be half measures.” Parliamentary rules say a group can only file a motion of censure with 72 signatures two months after the previous one took place — otherwise, they need 144 names. The last motion was on July 10, which means the earliest the groups can submit their motions with 72 signatures is Wednesday at midnight. “The plan is still to submit as soon as it is possible,” said Thomas Shannon, The Left’s spokesperson. A senior Patriots official confirmed the group will also file at midnight. To table the motion, they need to send an email to the Parliament president with the text and all the required signatures. Once filed, legal services will assess the veracity of the signatures, and if the motions are admissible, a no-confidence debate and vote could be summoned as early as October. POLITICO has contacted the Commission for comment.