Spain accused the EU of double standards regarding Ukraine and the Middle East

On April 24, 2026, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez once again elevated the controversy surrounding Israel to the level of pan-European politics. At an informal EU summit in Cyprus, he stated that the European Union’s inaction regarding Israel undermines trust in Europe and weakens its position in defending Ukraine. According to him, selective justice destroys the EU’s legitimacy not only on the international stage but also in the eyes of its own citizens.

For Israel, this statement is important not only as another criticism from Madrid. It concerns a broader process: some European countries are trying to link the war in Gaza, the situation in Lebanon, the West Bank, and European support for Ukraine into one political formula.

It is this linkage that causes particular irritation in Israel.

Sanchez is essentially saying: Europe cannot harshly condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine while simultaneously not taking similar measures against Israel. But for the Israeli audience, this framing of the issue seems controversial because Israel views its actions as a war following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, rather than as aggression against a neighboring state.

What Sanchez said and why it sounded harsh

Speaking in Cyprus, Sanchez warned EU country leaders that the lack of a unified and decisive stance on Israel weakens the entire European project. He emphasized that there is no consensus in the European Union: some governments support tougher measures against Israel, while others oppose them, resulting in a loss of trust in the very idea of European values.

According to the Spanish premier, the problem is not only in the Middle East. If Europe defends Ukraine as a victim of invasion but does not apply the same logic to other conflicts, its arguments become less convincing.

This is a strong political thesis aimed not only at diplomats but also at public opinion.

The EU-Israel Association Agreement has become the main tool of pressure

Sanchez referred to Article 2 of the association agreement between the EU and Israel. This article establishes that the parties’ relations are based on respect for human rights and democratic principles. It is on this norm that Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, and other countries rely, demanding a review or suspension of the agreement with Israel.

Madrid claims that Israel’s actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank violate international and humanitarian law. Therefore, according to Sanchez’s logic, the EU should not limit itself to statements but move to practical measures — up to suspending the agreement.

But within the European Union, such a position still lacks support.

On April 21, 2026, EU foreign ministers discussed the possibility of suspending the agreement with Israel, but there was no consensus. Germany and Italy opposed a drastic step, betting on critical dialogue rather than breaking cooperation mechanisms.

Where the fault line in Europe lies

In recent months, Spain has become one of the harshest critics of Israel within the European Union. Sanchez has already stated that a government that, according to him, violates international law cannot remain an EU partner in its previous format. Israel, in turn, sharply rejects such rhetoric and considers it politically one-sided.

Europe is divided not only over Israel but also over the very principle of sanctions.

Some countries believe that the EU must act harshly, otherwise it loses the moral right to speak about international law in the context of Ukraine. Others fear that pressure on Israel will harm dialogue, regional security, and Europe’s ability to influence the situation through diplomatic channels.

For Germany and Italy, the topic is especially sensitive. Berlin is traditionally cautious about sanction pressure on Israel due to historical responsibility to the Jewish people. Rome is also in no hurry to support steps that could destroy working relations with Jerusalem.

Why Ukraine is at the center of the Israel dispute

Sanchez uses the Ukrainian theme as an argument against the EU’s selective policy. His logic is simple: if Europe demands punishment for Russia for violating international law, it must be ready to apply the same standards to its partners.

But here arises a complex issue that is perceived very acutely in Israel.

Russia launched a full-scale war against Ukraine, occupied territories, and continues to attack Ukrainian cities. Israel, after October 7, is waging a war against Hamas while simultaneously facing threats from Hezbollah, Iran, and other proxy forces. For Jerusalem, mechanically comparing these situations does not look like a struggle for universal rights but as a political equation of different nature conflicts.

That is why Sanchez’s formula may be popular among some of the European left audience, but in Israel, it is perceived as a dangerous simplification.

In the middle of this dispute, it is important to see both the Ukrainian and Israeli contexts. Nikk.Agency — Israel News | Nikk.Agency views this story not as an ordinary diplomatic skirmish but as a sign that the war in Ukraine, Israel’s war against terrorist structures, and the crisis of European politics are increasingly being linked into one informational framework.

What this means for Israel, Ukraine, and the EU itself

For Israel, Sanchez’s statement means increased pressure on the European front. Even if the European Union cannot yet suspend the agreement with Israel, the discussion itself is already changing the tone of relations. In politics, sometimes not only the outcome of the vote is important but also which questions begin to be considered permissible.

Not long ago, breaking or suspending the key EU-Israel agreement seemed an extreme measure. Now it is being discussed openly, albeit without unity among the bloc’s countries.

For Ukraine, the situation is dual. On one hand, Kyiv is interested in Europe maintaining a tough line against Russia and not allowing Moscow to return to normalcy through trade, culture, and diplomacy. On the other hand, when the Ukrainian theme is used as an argument in the dispute against Israel, it can create unnecessary tension between two societies already under the pressure of war.

Spain helps Ukraine but pressures Israel

A separate detail makes Madrid’s position more complex: Spain has indeed increased its assistance to Ukraine. This includes cooperation in air defense, preparation for meetings in the Ramstein format, drones, long-range 155 mm ammunition, and technical assistance, including VAMTAC armored vehicles for Ukrainian border guards.

So Sanchez is not against Ukraine. On the contrary, he is trying to show that support for Ukraine should be part of a unified approach to international law.

But for Israel, the problem is different: such an approach often ignores the starting point of the current war — the massive Hamas attack, hostages, the threat from the north, and Iran’s role in the region. When these elements are left out, European criticism begins to look not like a legal position but as a political verdict without considering Israeli reality.

Why the EU risks losing trust from both sides

Sanchez is right in one thing: selectivity indeed destroys trust in international institutions.

But the question is who exactly and where sees this selectivity. In Spain, it is seen in the lack of sanctions against Israel. In Israel, it is seen in the fact that Europe often demands impossible sterility from the Jewish state in its war against terrorist organizations but does not react harshly enough to Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. In Ukraine, it is seen in the fact that many Western countries have been talking about rules for years but were too slow to arm Kyiv and too long feared escalation with Russia.

It turns into a vicious circle.

Each side sees double standards — only in different places. And that is why statements like Sanchez’s do not close the dispute but expand it.

For Israel, the immediate danger is not in one speech by the Spanish premier. The danger is that such logic may become a constant backdrop of European politics: trade agreements, cultural platforms, universities, courts, parliamentary resolutions, and media campaigns will increasingly turn into tools of pressure.

The EU has not yet made a tough decision against Israel.

But the very fact that the question of suspending the agreement is already being discussed at a high level shows that Israel-Europe relations are entering a more conflictual phase. And if Jerusalem does not actively explain its position, the European information field will be filled only by those who see Israel not as an ally but as a problem.