Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1535753
2 2 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 MAY 2025 ANALYSIS Up until a few months ago, Malta cautiously followed Spain and Ireland's lead without taking the decisive step of recognising Palestine. But has Malta's caution cost it leadership, as the EU mood slowly but decisively turns against Israel? James Debono tries to answer the question. As EU mood turns against Israel, GIVEN its history and the broad political consensus in favour of a Palestinian state, Malta was well-positioned to take a leading role in calls for sanctions against Israel over war crimes and viola- tions of international law. Instead, in recent months, Malta has stepped back, opting to follow the lead of more vocal EU member states and hesitating even to take the basic step—al- ready undertaken by Spain and Ireland last year—of recognising the Palestinian state. This reluctance is especially striking given that, unlike Germa- ny and other member states, Mal- ta is not weighed down by a par- alysing sense of 'Holocaust guilt'. And like Ireland, it has a colonial past that should foster greater af- finity with the colonised Palestin- ians. Moreover, Prime Minister Robert Abela faces no domestic political resistance, with the Na- tionalist Party also calling for im- mediate recognition of Palestine. A historical legacy Abela also carries a legacy that has defined Maltese foreign poli- cy since the 1970s. Malta has rec- ognised Palestinian "aspirations" for statehood since 1988 and has hosted a Palestinian embassy ever since. Two of the country's post-inde- pendence political giants—Dom Mintoff and Guido de Marco— firmly supported and befriended Yasser Arafat, even when he was shunned by most western gov- ernments and well before the Os- lo Agreement. In 1974, Prime Minister Dom Mintoff had invited the Pales- tinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) to open an office in Malta. Addressing the Council of Eu- rope's Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg in 1978, Dom Mintoff accused western European states of impotence; shirking their re- sponsibility in seeking a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which had already persisted for three decades. Furthermore, during his ten- ure as President of the United Nations General Assembly from 1990 to 1991, Guido de Marco visited refugee camps in the oc- cupied Palestinian territories, including the Gaza Strip, despite vocal opposition from the United States. He did so during a particu- larly difficult period after the First Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles at Israel. Malta is also the country where, in 2002, both Alfred Sant and Ed- die Fenech Adami had no qualms about wearing a keffiyeh during a pro-Palestinian protest—even though the symbolic gesture an- gered the Israeli ambassador. Compare this legacy to the pres- ent day. Only a few politicians like MEPs Alex Agius Saliba and David Casa, and Nationalist MPs like Mario de Marco and Albert Buttigieg, speak passionately and forcefully on this issue. While the PN is often bogged down by the traditional alignment of its European family (EPP), with pro-Israeli positions, Labour is also reluctant to stir international waters. Crucially, not only is Malta still waiting for the right time to rec- ognise Palestine as a state, but it has even remained silent when Israeli drones allegedly (but most probably) attacked a boat just outside its territorial waters and within its designated Exclusive Economic Zone. Following instead of leading Instead of taking a leading role, Malta has been overtaken by Pe- dro Sánchez's Spain and Micheál Martin's Ireland as the EU's most vocal critics of Israeli actions in Gaza. Significantly, Malta failed to join Spain, Norway, and Ireland when all three granted full recognition to the Palestinian state in May 2024. Sure, Malta continues to state its intention to recognise Pales- tine when it believes such rec- ognition would make a positive contribution and when the cir- cumstances are right. But this ap- pears to mean waiting for other major players like France or the UK to move first. While Malta supports these broader initiatives led by oth- er countries, it has consistently avoided stepping into a leader- ship role. Unlike Abela, Sánchez has pub- licly called for Israel's suspension from international cultural and sporting events. Spain has also of- ficially joined South Africa's case at the International Court of Jus- tice, accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention. A tectonic shift The danger now is that Mal- ta risks being left behind by a growing shift in European public opinion, which has turned deci- sively against Israel—even if this shift has yet to translate into full- blown sanctions. But the fact that traditional and long-standing Israeli allies like the Netherlands are fronting the call for a review of EU trade agree- ments with Israel speaks volumes about the change in mood trig- gered by the use of starvation as a weapon of war. After missing the opportunity to lead the change in EU policy, that change is now happening re- gardless of Malta's stance. Sure, this changed landscape will make it safer for Malta to rec- ognise Palestine, but it will hardly go down in history as an act of boldness. While Prime Minister Abela and Labour politicians have crit- icised EU President Roberta Met- sola for her soft touch on Israel, government action has remained extremely cautious. This raises questions about whether Labour is taking a principled stance or simply trying to score points against Metsola and the PN. Why the caution? Revulsion at Hamas's 7 October heinous terror attack may explain the initial hesitation, even though Israel's response quickly revealed a blatant disregard for interna- tional law. It was not hard to predict that, if left unchecked, Israel—led by a government with far-right ele- ments—would wreak havoc. But EU and US leaders, including Roberta Metsola, immediately embarked on "bear hug diplo- macy", showering Israel with support in the vain hope that it would respect international law. The Maltese government's re- sponse was more muted. In this aspect, Ian Borg's caution was wiser than Metsola's hasty deci- sion to visit Tel Aviv when bombs were already falling on Palestini- ans. But at that stage, Malta was also cautious in condemning Isra- el's actions. This caution can partly be ex- plained by Malta's institutional roles in international bodies. As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council during the early phases of the war, Mal- ta aimed to act as a constructive bridge-builder and honest bro- ker. Premature recognition could have compromised its ability to