TEHRAN - As tensions in Gaza and the West Bank escalate, the European Union has taken an unprecedented step by proposing the suspension of trade concessions with Israel, signaling growing international concern over the humanitarian crisis. The move comes amid widespread protests across European capitals, raising questions about the effectiveness of symbolic sanctions versus tangible political pressure. 

To explore the implications of these developments, the Tehran Times conducted an exclusive interview with Dr. Ashok Swain, an Indian-born academic and political commentator who serves as a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University in Sweden. A recognized expert on international conflicts, migration, water security, and global governance, Dr. Swain has extensively analyzed the intersection of human rights, international diplomacy, and the balance of power in West Asia. 

In this interview, he provides a detailed assessment of the EU’s latest actions, the underlying motivations behind European responses, and the potential consequences for both Israel and Palestinian civilians. He also addresses the growing disconnect between EU official policies and the sentiments of citizens demanding accountability.

Below is the full text of the interview:

The European Union has often been accused of shielding Israel diplomatically. Do you see the move toward tariffs and sanctions on Israel as a genuine policy shift, or more as symbolic pressure?

The EU’s proposed tariffs and sanctions are a break from its usual pattern of shielding Israel diplomatically, but they remain half-measures designed to signal pressure rather than fundamentally alter the balance of power.

Suspending trade preferences on a slice of Israeli exports and targeting extremist ministers sends a political message, yet it avoids touching Israel’s arms trade with Europe or the broader Association Agreement. It is more symbolic than structural, and Israel knows it.

To what extent do you think public protests across European capitals forced EU leaders to act?

Public protests across European capitals have been the real driver of this shift, forcing EU leaders to finally confront the gap between their rhetoric on human rights and their complicity in Israel’s war.

Without months of sustained mobilization—from Barcelona to Berlin—Brussels would have continued with its empty calls for restraint. The EU’s hand has been forced by its own citizens’ outrage, not by any sudden moral awakening in its institutions.

“European streets demand an end to genocide, while leaders offer cautious, incremental measures that stop short of cutting military or political ties.” 
EU states are deeply divided on the Israel-Palestine conflict. How sustainable is a common EU position on sanctions, given countries like Germany’s traditional support for Israel?

A common EU position on sanctions will be extremely fragile, as countries like Germany continue to cloak Israel in historical guilt and strategic alignment, while Hungary treats it as part of its illiberal alliances. Southern and Western European states may push harder, but the deep divisions mean any collective stance will be diluted and constantly at risk of unraveling. Sustaining unity against Israel’s conduct will remain an uphill struggle.

Do you foresee these sanctions translating into real pressure for a permanent ceasefire and accountability, or will Israel be able to weather the economic hit?

These sanctions are unlikely to bring about a permanent ceasefire or real accountability, because Israel has weathered far greater economic and diplomatic isolation in the past while enjoying unwavering U.S. protection. The Israeli leadership thrives on defiance and domestic rallying around the flag, and the limited tariffs proposed will not force a strategic rethink. Without broader economic isolation and legal accountability, Israel will treat this as a nuisance, not an existential threat.

Do you see a widening gap between official EU policies on Gaza and the sentiments of European citizens?

There is already a widening gulf between EU governments and their citizens on Gaza: European streets demand an end to genocide, while leaders offer cautious, incremental measures that stop short of cutting military or political ties. The sanctions proposal reflects mounting pressure from below, but it still falls far short of the moral clarity expressed by European publics. This gap erodes EU legitimacy both at home and abroad.

How might the EU sanctions impact Palestinian civilians in Gaza economically and socially? 

Sanctions targeting Israeli goods and officials will not directly harm Palestinians in Gaza, but unless accompanied by massive humanitarian relief and reconstruction aid, they risk being perceived as symbolic gestures while the suffering continues. The EU must ensure that sanctions are paired with unconditional pressure to lift the blockade, open humanitarian corridors, and provide emergency funds for food, medicine, and shelter, otherwise civilians will see little tangible relief.

 How can the EU navigate its complex relationships with key allies like the United States while pursuing a stronger stance on Israel’s actions in Gaza?

Navigating relations with the United States will be the EU’s greatest challenge, since Washington remains Israel’s ultimate shield against accountability. If the EU is serious, it must be willing to chart an independent course, even at the cost of friction with Washington. Otherwise, any sanctions will be cosmetic. A stronger European stance could, in fact, embolden progressive voices in the U.S. who also question unconditional support for Israel.

How can peace-building initiatives be integrated with punitive measures like sanctions to create sustainable solutions beyond the immediate crisis?

Sanctions alone cannot build peace, but they can create leverage for negotiations if tied to a political roadmap that prioritizes Palestinian rights, international law, and accountability.

The EU should link punitive measures with proactive support for civil society, mediation efforts, and reconstruction planning that lays the foundation for a viable two-state solution or alternative just settlement. Only by combining pressure with genuine peace-building initiatives can Europe move beyond symbolic gestures and address the root causes of the crisis.