THE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO ISRAEL

Translated by Federico Emanuele

The European Union, conceived as a normative power, bases its legitimacy on the promotion of an international order founded on shared norms, international law, and multilateralism. However, the Israeli case exposes the structural limits of this self-representation, showing how Europe’s apparent normative centrality is systematically subordinated to the global power hierarchy, unable to translate its proclaimed principles into effective operational tools. For decades, Israel has operated under a condition of normative exceptionality that allows it to ignore UN resolutions concerning the occupied territories, while its military operations in Gaza and the West Bank raise persistent questions about compliance with humanitarian law, the proportionality of the use of force, and the protection of civilians. The limited effectiveness of actions by the International Criminal Court and the absence of binding coercive measures by the UN clearly highlight the weakness of multilateral institutions, unable to translate normative rhetoric into concrete and binding decisions.

From the perspective of offensive realism, as theorized by John Mearsheimer, this exceptionality can be explained by the asymmetry of structural power that places Israel under the strategic umbrella of the United States, a political and military support system that neutralizes any multilateral pressure and transforms American protection into a key factor shaping Israeli behavior. The Trump administration intensified this dynamic through unilateral acts, such as the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the legitimation of the Golan annexation, affirming the supremacy of geopolitical power over international law and demonstrating how power relations can systematically prevail over multilateral norms. From a liberalist point of view, this context undermines the credibility of multilateral institutions, reduces global trust in the UN system and the International Court of Justice, and weakens the capacity of any normative actor, including the EU, to exert influence through law and normative persuasion.

Within this framework, France’s recognition of the State of Palestine and Emmanuel Macron’s call for other states to follow suit represent a significant attempt to connect political legitimacy with the application of international norms, positioning political recognition as a concrete instrument to rebalance the international order in a region where multilateral weakness has amplified Israel’s discretionary power. Macron has also supported the New York Declaration, endorsed by over 140 states, which calls for the stabilization of Gaza, the release of hostages, the dismantling of Hamas, and the simultaneous recognition of Israel and Palestine, outlining an approach aimed at balancing security, political responsibility, and respect for international law, while emphasizing the need for a sustainable and lasting solution that goes beyond symbolic statements and turns into measurable, practical tools.

Despite these initiatives, the European Union remains trapped in its own normative ambivalence. From a constructivist perspective, its identity as a normative actor is constantly tested by the gap between proclaimed principles and operational practice. This is evident in the EU’s firm response to the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, which included strict sanctions and concrete measures, compared to its internal divisions on policies toward Israel and Palestine, with Germany and Hungary aligned in support of Tel Aviv, while others such as Ireland, Spain, and Belgium stress the need to protect Palestinian rights. The French initiative demonstrates that a coherent approach is theoretically possible but also highlights the structural difficulty of building a European consensus that would allow the EU to exercise genuine and decisive influence in the Middle East.

Italy, in this context, adopts an ambivalent stance, constrained by Atlantic commitments and its Mediterranean projection. Rome maintains strategic ties with Israel in defense, technological innovation, and energy cooperation, strengthening the bilateral partnership while limiting the possibility of an autonomous position. Yet, the gap between words and deeds is evident: Italy strongly condemns violations of Ukrainian sovereignty, but takes a cautious and mostly rhetorical approach to Israeli violations, thus exposing a normative selectivity that undermines the coherence of its foreign policy.

The strategic and normative implications of this selectivity are significant: the UN’s weakness in translating resolutions into concrete actions erodes the effectiveness of international law, undermines the European Union’s legitimacy as a global actor, and limits Italy’s credibility as a potential mediator in the Mediterranean. From a realist point of view, rules matter only when backed by power relations; from a liberalist perspective, without institutional coherence multilateralism loses its binding force; and according to constructivism, Europe’s normative identity risks becoming hollow if not accompanied by impartial and consistent implementation of its principles.

The French initiative shows that a coherent approach, grounded in the political recognition of the State of Palestine and supported by concrete diplomatic tools, can strengthen the international order. Meanwhile, Italy, if it wishes to preserve its centrality and credibility, must decide whether to continue prioritizing its Atlantic alignment or to contribute actively to building a coherent European stance capable of turning normative discourse into effective political instruments that can truly impact a region where the rules do not apply to all.

Mondo Internazionale APS – Riproduzione riservata ® 2025