Europe’s voice is often sharp when it comes to Israel’s policies in the Palestinian arena. European leaders criticize settlement expansion, question Israel’s peace diplomacy, and warn against steps that might foreclose a two-state solution.
This criticism is real. And it is sometimes public and pointed. But it coexists with another reality that is just as enduring – and far more consequential. When Israel’s very survival is at stake, Europe stands with it.
The latest statements from Berlin, London, Paris, Tirana, and The Hague, in response to the war with Iran, make this plain. The tone varies; the emphasis differs. Yet, beneath the diplomatic phrasing lies a consistent commitment to Israel’s security.
Consider German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. His message following the joint action against Iran was plain: Germany remains committed to the security of Israel. He coupled that commitment with support for the Iranian people and condemnation of Tehran’s suppression. This dual framing is not new. It reflects a long-standing doctrine that Israel’s security is a matter of German responsibility. Berlin may argue with Jerusalem about peace-process tactics, but it does not equivocate when Israel faces an existential threat.
The same pattern holds in London. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made clear that the Iranian regime must never acquire nuclear weapons. He stressed that British forces were not participating in strikes inside Iran, but confirmed that British aircraft were in the skies as part of coordinated regional defense operations.
That detail matters. It signals that when missiles fly toward Israel and its partners, Britain acts to intercept and defend. Criticism of Israeli policy in Gaza and Ramallah does not translate into indifference when Tel Aviv and Beersheba are under fire.
Paris struck a more generic tone, yet the substance was unmistakable. President Emanuel Macron warned of the grave consequences of escalation and called for urgent diplomacy. At the same time, he stated that France stands ready to deploy necessary resources to protect its closest partners if requested.
Europe's support for Israel regarding the conflict with Iran
France has been among the most vocal European critics of Israeli settlement policy. Still, when the issue shifts from borders and negotiations to nuclear proliferation and ballistic missiles aimed at Israel, the calculus changes. The French position aligns with the core European assessment that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten not only Israel, but the international order itself.
Perhaps most striking was the clarity from Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama. The leader of a Muslim majority country, Rama called for formally designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, and declared firm support for efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Albania’s stance reflects direct experience with Iranian cyber aggression and a broader moral alignment with Israel’s right to defend itself. His statement underscores a wider European truth: Support for Israel’s survival is not confined to one religious or cultural bloc: It is anchored in a shared understanding of security and law.
Even the more cautious response from the Netherlands fits the pattern. The new Dutch prime minister, Rob Jetten, urged restraint and de-escalation. But the accompanying foreign ministry statement catalogued deep concerns about the Iranian regime’s repression, nuclear program, and destabilizing role. Calling for diplomacy does not negate recognition of the threat. It reflects a European instinct to contain escalation while acknowledging that Iran’s actions are a central driver of instability.
To understand why this matters, one must look beyond the present crisis. Europe’s record during earlier wars tells a consistent story.
In 1967, as Israel faced mobilization by neighboring Arab states, European governments were divided over tactics and rhetoric, but none aligned themselves with calls for Israel’s destruction. After the war, Europe became a key arena for diplomatic efforts that preserved Israel’s legitimacy in international forums.
In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, some European states were cautious in the face of the Arab oil embargo. But even then, the essential commitment to Israel’s existence held. No major European power endorsed the eliminationist goals voiced by some of Israel’s adversaries.
During the First Gulf War (1990-91), following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, European states joined the coalition that enforced international law and ultimately reduced the missile threat that had reached Israeli cities. European air forces and militaries participated in operations designed to uphold regional stability and prevent the normalization of aggression as a tool of statecraft.
The same logic was visible during the 12 Day War between Iran and Israel in June 2025. While European leaders urged restraint and renewed negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, European air forces and defense systems contributed to broader regional efforts to shield Israeli airspace from incoming threats. That assistance was not always front-page news. It was, however, a concrete expression of solidarity when Israel’s civilian population was in danger.
I believe that Europe’s growing distance from Middle Eastern battlefields certainly reflects a decline in its strategic weight. Its influence today is not what it once was, especially when compared with Washington, Beijing, or rising regional powers.
Europe is often reactive rather than decisive. Yet, even from this critical vantage point, relevance cannot be judged only by who fires the first shot or commands the largest military footprint. It must also be measured by who is prepared to stand unequivocally for Israel’s survival when that survival is at risk. On that defining question, Europe still carries real weight.
On that score, Europe has been consistent. It has supported diplomatic frameworks, including negotiations over Iran’s nuclear activities, because it seeks to prevent war. It has criticized Israeli policies that it believes complicate a two-state solution, because it views such an outcome as the best path to long-term stability. But when confronted with actors that deny Israel’s right to exist or pursue capabilities that could make such a denial catastrophic, Europe closes ranks.
This duality can be uncomfortable. Israeli leaders sometimes bristle at European lectures; European officials sometimes express frustration at Israeli politics. Yet, beneath the surface disagreements lie a shared strategic baseline. Europe does not see Israel as a temporary project or a bargaining chip. Europe sees Israel as the sovereign state it is, whose destruction would be a moral and geopolitical failure of the highest order.
That is why statements from Berlin, London, Paris, Tirana, and The Hague converge on one essential point: Iran must not be allowed to threaten Israel with nuclear weapons. Attacks on Israel and on regional partners must stop. Diplomacy is preferable, but deterrence is indispensable.
Europe may no longer dominate Middle Eastern geopolitics, and its leverage is often limited. But when the question shifts from policy disputes to survival, the pattern across decades rings clear.
Europe argues with Israel. Europe pressures Israel. Europe occasionally disappoints Israel. Yet, when missiles fly and existential threats loom, Europe is there.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) and a professor of European studies and international relations in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.