​On Friday, 14 November 2025, the two-day conference “Palestine and Europe: The Weight of the Past and Contemporary Dynamics” closed in Paris. The event was organized by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, Paris (CAREP) and explored the historical and political dimensions of the relationship between Europe and Palestine and the role of European powers in shaping the Palestinian question and its contemporary transformations.

The first day of the conference was organized around four sessions that examined the emergence of Zionism within the context of nineteenth-century European colonial expansion and the British Mandate in Palestine as a foundational moment in the formation of the Palestinian national movement and in the entanglement of the imperialist and Zionist projects. The sessions also included a critique of the trajectory of European institutions, from the European Community to the European Union, highlighting the tension between rhetoric on the defence of human rights and international law on the one hand, and the practical inability to protect Palestinian rights on the other. The day concluded with research papers discussing the prospects for coordinating European foreign policies towards the Palestine question amid divisions between European states.

The second day of the conference likewise comprised four sessions, focusing on the impact of Europe’s colonial past and its historical and symbolic burdens in shaping contemporary positions on Palestine, as well as the rise of popular mobilization in solidarity with Palestinians across European societies. The discussions then turned to the interlinkages between economic interests and networks of political and security influence connecting Europe and Israel, particularly in trade, arms, and technology.

The conference concluded with a public discussion on the future of the relationship between Europe and the Palestinian question. The panel featured Josep Borrell, the European Union’s former High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967; and Dominique de Villepin, French diplomat and statesman. The discussion examined how the war on Gaza and the Palestinian question more broadly are reshaping European popular and state politics and Europe’s image of itself.

Borrell opened the discussion by emphasizing that none of the conference contributions contained any antisemitic sentiment, and he described Collège de France’s decision to withdraw from hosting the conference as a political “mistake”. He went on to criticize the European Union’s stance on the war in Gaza, noting that the Israeli–Palestinian “conflict” revealed the depth of division among European states: some called for the activation of the human-rights clause of the EU–Israel Association Agreement due to violations, while others clung to the language of “Israel’s right to self-defence” and rejected any practical measures. He explained that his initiatives in his official capacity – such as suspending political dialogue with Israel or freezing certain cooperation programmes – received no response from the European Council or the European Commission. He also highlighted the contrast with the rapid establishment of a dedicated judicial mechanism for war crimes in Ukraine, something not replicated in the case of Gaza. Borrell noted that European public opinion, especially in Germany, was moving more clearly than governments, with recent polls showing that a majority of Germans believe their government is overstating its support for Israel while ignoring the scale of destruction in Gaza. Yet European institutions continue to act as if there were “no legal or political grounds” for suspending the Association Agreement with Israel.

Meanwhile, Albanese provided a legal analysis of the European position, beginning with Article 2 of the EU–Israel Association Agreement, which stipulates respect for human rights. She argued that signing this agreement in the first place with a state engaged in military occupation and settlement-building since 1967 was a “European shame”. She maintained that what is taking place in Gaza is not a “war” but a planned and executed genocide, and that Europe is not only silent on the matter but continues to benefit materially from its continued political, economic, and military support for a state that UN reports consider responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Albanese also criticized those countries often viewed as progressive, such as Spain and Ireland, arguing that even they have not met the minimum legal obligations not to assist a state committing grave violations of international law. She drew attention to the decades of impunity for Israel and argued that political Europe today is revealing its true nature: driven by economics and still harbouring an unaccounted-for colonial and racist legacy. By contrast, she said, hope lies with a new generation – young people, workers, and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement – who reject this complicity, as well as with the possibility of building a new international pluralism with countries of the Global South. She warned that limiting action to statements and symbolic recognitions of the State of Palestine without concrete measures will ultimately lead to the disappearance of Palestine, along with part of the fundamental rights and freedoms within Europe itself.

De Villepin, for his part, linked the Palestine question to Europe’s internal and external transformations, arguing that Palestine is not a “distant” issue for Europe but one directly connected to its geography, security, and political balances – something demonstrated by the crises in Iraq and Syria and by the refugee crisis of 2015. He noted that this geographical proximity had rendered Europe’s diplomatic incapacity even more severe, as European policy, in his view, has devolved into a “diplomacy of statements and verbal sympathy”, leaving initiative to the United States. He called for restoring the independence of European diplomacy from Washington and for deploying tools such as the European market and partnership agreements to promote stability in Europe’s neighbourhood – even through flexible arrangements involving “coalitions of the willing”, rather than waiting for a unified European stance that never materializes.

De Villepin highlighted the importance of the “dimension of memory”, stressing that Palestine has become a “mirror” reflecting overlapping European memories: the Eastern Question, the colonial legacy, and the trauma of Nazism and the Holocaust. He warned of a “war of memories” in which each memory is weaponized against another: when the Holocaust is invoked to criminalize any criticism of Israel, or when the suffering of Gaza is exploited to fuel antisemitic discourse, memory becomes a political tool that undermines the very foundations of Europe’s ethical coexistence. Regarding the characterization of what is happening in Gaza, he argued that there are “two traps” to avoid: one is equating Gaza with events in Europe eighty years ago in a way that erases the uniqueness of the Holocaust; the other is refusing to consider the question of genocide in a way that erases the core moral commitment underpinning the 1948 Convention. He maintained that leaving the matter entirely to international courts, especially as their work is obstructed by various pressures, amounts to shirking the “duty of prevention”. He called for “naming things” as they are, on the basis of what eyes can see and consciences know, and insisted that journalists, experts, and judges must be granted access to Gaza, since accepting obscurity is itself a form of complicity.