Mere recognition is not enough: Gaza ceasefire will be a test of Europe’s sincerity
The Gaza ceasefire has brought into the spotlight the arms sale policies of European countries, which contradict their decision to recognise Palestine.
In September, European and Anglosphere countries signalled a diplomatic shift by announcing their official recognition of Palestine.
The United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada and Australia were among the countries that announced this decision, giving fresh momentum to the Palestinian cause – an issue in which the Western world had been too slow to fulfil its moral responsibilities.
However, there is a question as important as the recognition itself: what do these steps change on the ground?
In reality, the recognition statements go no further than a symbolic gesture. The same governments continue arms exports to Israel, besides exporting licences and economic-scientific privilege networks.
For all the hype over the recognitions, concrete political changes are now needed instead of symbolic actions.
Weeks after the recognition decisions, a ceasefire came into effect in Gaza on October 9 after the Israeli cabinet approved a 20-point peace agreement brokered by mediators with Hamas.
IMF President Kristalina Georgieva emphasised that maintaining the ceasefire is of great economic and humanitarian importance for the region. The European Commission announced its support for the diplomatic efforts led by the US, Türkiye, Qatar and Egypt.
Türkiye announced that it was ready to participate in the international monitoring mechanism overseeing the implementation of the ceasefire. This development has transformed the recognition from a diplomatic symbol into a practical test.
However, the sustainability of the ceasefire will reveal whether Palestine's recognition is merely a political gesture or a valid will on the ground.
The elephant in the room
The declaration of the Gaza ceasefire has brought the arms policies of European countries, which contradict their recognition decisions, back under the spotlight.
Even in an environment where hostilities have ceased, the continuation of arms shipments undermines the credibility of these countries' rhetoric of ‘peace diplomacy’.
France is the most prominent example of this contradiction. A year before announcing its recognition of Palestine in September 2025, the Paris administration had approved a military order worth €27.1 million to Israel.
According to UN data, France's military equipment exports to Israel amounted to $57 million in 2024. These parts and subsystems were critical to Israel's ability to maintain its own arms production chain.
Whether France suspends these contracts during the ceasefire will determine the practical implications of its recognition decision.
The UK recognised Palestine on September 21, but still maintains hundreds of export licences. Although London suspended some licences at the end of 2024, it did not announce a comprehensive embargo throughout 2025. The cancellation or suspension of these licences after the ceasefire will show whether the UK will support its “moral responsibility” with concrete steps.
Canada announced on January 8, 2024, that it would suspend issuing new licences for military products that could be used in Gaza. However, over 160 existing licences remained in force. Throughout 2024, approximately 19 million Canadian dollars worth of military products were shipped from Canada to Israel.
Whether Canada will freeze these licences during the ceasefire process will test the difference between rhetoric and practice once again.
Germany approved export licences worth 161 million euros to Israel in 2024; it also granted new permits worth 28 million euros in the first quarter of 2025.
On August 8, 2025, Berlin announced that it had “halted exports of items that could be used in Gaza”, but this decision did not amount to a comprehensive embargo.
Whether Germany extends this restriction during the ceasefire period will be an important criterion for determining the political sincerity of its recognition.
Belgium's Wallonia Region imposed a transit ban on Israel in 2024 by suspending gunpowder and ammunition licences. The proliferation of such sub-regional decisions across Europe during the ceasefire could be effective in translating diplomatic intent into action on the ground.
While the recognition of Palestine in Europe represents an important symbolic threshold, the continuation of arms exports creates a clear contradiction in the countries’ policies.
In other words, while diplomatic statements display a moral stance, the pursuit of economic interests renders this stance almost entirely ineffective on the ground.
For the decisions of Europe and other countries to recognise Palestine to have a meaningful impact on the ground, a common and transparent arms export licensing control mechanism must first be established.
Currently, countries generally impose restrictions individually and on a temporary basis; however, the implementation of the EU's own Common Position could provide a comprehensive and binding framework.
However, it should not be forgotten that the US plays a dominant role in Israel's arms supply: European embargoes alone cannot stop the main flow from the US.
The sustainability of the ceasefire depends on these supply chains being transparently restricted.
Economic and scientific privilege networks
The Gaza ceasefire has also reopened discussions on Europe's economic and scientific relations with Israel.
The EU–Israel Association Agreement has been in force since 2000. Israel still participates in the EU's Horizon Europe research fund with ‘associated country’ status.
The Canada–Israel Free Trade Agreement has also been in force since 1997 and was modernised in 2019. In 2024, Israel's defence industry exports reached a record $15 billion, with 54 percent of this amount going to Europe.
If these trade relations remain unchanged in the post-ceasefire period, Europe's ‘peace’ rhetoric will continue to be overshadowed by its own economic interests.
The EU framework on arms exports is set out in its Common Position. This regulation prohibits the sale of arms to countries where there is a risk of human rights violations.
Given the civilian casualties and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it is clear that continued exports to Israel are in conflict with this legal framework.
In the context of the ceasefire, whether EU members will apply this rule will test the sincerity of Europe's claim to be a ‘normative power’.
In the Netherlands, the Hague Court of Appeal halted exports of F-35 parts to Israel on February 12, 2024; this decision demonstrated that EU law can be an effective tool when properly enforced.
Consequently, the recognition decisions taken in September gained a new dimension with the ceasefire announced in October.
The issue is no longer merely the acceptance of Palestine's diplomatic status, but whether this recognition will contribute to the sustainability of peace. The ceasefire will truly test the gap between the rhetoric and actions of European countries.
Without halting arms exports, redefining trade privileges, and applying EU law without exception, declarations of recognition will remain mere good intentions.
Real change requires rebuilding the foundations of peace in a robust manner. Consistency, not politically correct diplomacy, will be the determining factor.