This is an opinion article. The views expressed belong to the author.
Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned settler violence in the occupied West Bank.
Read that sentence again.
A prime minister currently wanted by the International Criminal Court over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity is publicly condemning violence committed by settlers under his own government’s authority.
The irony is difficult to ignore: even Netanyahu is condemning crimes committed by his own, while Europe, including Luxembourg, still struggles to understand that condemnation and expressions of concern are not enough.
Palestinians have endured mass killing, displacement, hunger, torture of detainees and destruction on a scale that has triggered allegations of the gravest international crimes. International courts have intervened. Civil society has protested. European citizens have petitioned their governments.
And Luxembourg?
We condemn. We express concern. We call for restraint.
Then we carry on.
Luxembourg knew. It commissioned the research.
This is no longer simply a question of political preference or diplomatic caution.
The Chamber of Deputies commissioned independent legal research into Luxembourg’s responsibilities. Published in March 2026, the research identified concrete obligations and measures Luxembourg should consider, including preventing economic activities from contributing to the continuation of the occupation, ensuring respect for international humanitarian law, avoiding complicity and taking steps to prevent genocide.
So what happened next?
Months later, the Luxembourg trade office in Tel Aviv remains open.
More troublingly, according to parliamentary responses concerning due diligence on Israeli companies and trade (including responses 4200, 4393, 2563 and public petition 3231), Luxembourg relies on its offices in Tel Aviv to support this due-diligence process.
Think about that.
We rely on the same trade infrastructure designed to facilitate economic relations to help assess whether those relations comply with international law.
At the very least, this raises a profound question about independence and conflicts of interest.
Meanwhile, institutional, economical, academic and cultural cooperation continues.
Business proceeds as usual.
Where are the consequences?
“Europe barks loudly but lacks the teeth when it comes to Israel.”
Those were the words of Xavier Bettel.
But what about Luxembourg? The government’s responses to public petitions and opposition demands raise the same question:
Do we have the teeth to match our words?
A new face? A new approach? Or simply more barking without teeth?
We are yet to see.
Luxembourg and Europe have shown that they can act decisively when they choose to.
Europe has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia and extensive measures against Iran. We know how targeted sanctions work. We know how to distinguish between populations and the governments, institutions, officials and economic actors responsible for wrongdoing.
So why does that principle suddenly become so difficult when Israel is concerned?
Whatever the reason-history, political pressure, strategic interests, economic relationships or fear – we should have the courage to ask the question.
Because the result is clear: Israel has been granted a level of political impunity that Europe does not appear willing to grant others.
If human rights are universal, Palestinian lives cannot be protected only in our speeches.
If never again means anything, it cannot mean never again for some, but later for others.
And if condemnation is all we are prepared to offer, then we should stop pretending it is action.
Condemnation without consequences is not neutrality. It is a choice to be complicit.
And when governments have been presented with legal obligations, evidence and repeated demands for action, continued inaction itself becomes something we must be willing to scrutinize.
The Palestinians deserve more than our condolences. Europeans and Luxembourgish deserve more than the hypocrisy of our own principles.
