Israel’s October 27 election presents Europe with a question that will survive the counting of votes: what conduct should determine the terms of its relationship with Israel? A change of prime minister could open diplomatic doors, but it would not automatically change settlement policy or restore Palestinian political rights. The useful distinction is between replacing a government and reversing the institutions and incentives that sustain its policies. Confusing the two would make an electoral upset look more transformative than it is.
Washington has already made its preference clear. Donald Trump endorsed Benjamin Netanyahu on October 18, ahead of a contest in which polling leaves both the governing camp and its opponents facing difficult coalition arithmetic. That intervention reinforces the personal bond between the two leaders. It also risks encouraging the assumption that Israel’s international relationships turn mainly on individual politicians, when the harder disputes concern territory, law and security.
The legal baseline does not depend on who forms the next coalition. In its July 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice found Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful and called for it to end as rapidly as possible. The opinion is advisory rather than a binding judgment between states, and Israel rejected its conclusions. Even so, an election cannot resolve the underlying conflict between continuing territorial control and Palestinian self determination.
Domestic legislation provides another concrete test. In May, United Nations experts challenged Israel’s new death penalty law, raising concerns about discrimination, fair trials and the right to life. Their communication identified provisions that treat Palestinians in the West Bank differently from Israeli citizens and residents. Repealing discriminatory measures would provide stronger evidence of political change than a more conciliatory diplomatic vocabulary.
Europe also has instruments that reach beyond statements of concern. In May 2026, the European Union sanctioned additional individuals and organisations over serious abuses against Palestinians, including groups supporting settlement outposts. The measures include asset freezes and restrictions on making funds available. Their significance lies in attaching consequences to identifiable conduct rather than waiting for a wholesale political settlement.
These precedents suggest a practical approach after the election: assess the next government through decisions that can be observed and verified. Settlement expansion, protection from settler violence and equal treatment before the law offer clearer measures than promises of a fresh start. Progress should receive a response, while continuing abuses should carry continuing costs. Europe’s credibility will depend on applying that standard consistently, whoever occupies the prime minister’s office.
Original analysis inspired by Beth Oppenheim from ECFR. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
