Thursday, June 18, 2026

 

Bulgarian prime minister opposes EU sanctions on Russia's Patriarch Kirill

Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev.
Copyright AP Photo

By Jorge Liboreiro & Marina Stoimenova
Published on

"The era of the Crusades is over," the Bulgarian prime minister said on Thursday as he confirmed his opposition to the proposal.

The European Union will once again face an uphill struggle to impose sanctions on Patriarch Kirill, the head of Russia's Orthodox Church.

After Hungary lifted its long-standing veto, Bulgaria has emerged as the new obstacle in the decision, which requires unanimity.

The opposition was confirmed on Thursday by the country's new prime minister, Rumen Radev, before he flew to Brussels to attend his first-ever EU summit.

"What message are we sending when we extend sanctions and war into the sphere of religion? Do we realise where this leads?" Radev told reporters in Sofia.

"The era of the Crusades is over. I am not interested in the Russian Patriarch as an individual. I am interested in the fact that he is the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is Eastern Orthodox, just like our church. I am concerned about the millions of people who belong to that church."

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church are administratively independent, with different patriarchs, but both belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, share the same faith and dogma, and are bound by cultural and historical ties.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the primary confession in many Eastern European countries, including Russia, Bulgaria and Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Bulgarian Foreign Minister Velislava Petrova-Chamova voiced opposition to sanctioning Patriarch Kirill, arguing the proposal would be purely "symbolic" – even though the restrictions would introduce a travel ban and freeze EU-held assets.

The sanctions, she said, "have no economic effect but rather have the potential to be counterproductive, because they create an environment in which anti-European propaganda can be carried out, specifically along the lines that Europe is interfering in church affairs. Therefore, we do not consider this to be productive."

Kirill, a highly controversial figure with both religious and political influence, has been accused of spreading revisionist propaganda to justify the war in Ukraine.

Under his leadership, the Russian Orthodox Church approved a document that called for the annihilation of Ukrainian independence and described the invasion as a "Holy War".

The EU first tried to blacklist Kirill in 2022. But Hungary, under then-prime minister Viktor Orbán, blocked the move, calling it an issue of religious freedom.

The veto made headlines and caused outrage among other countries.

The matter lay dormant until last month, when the new Hungarian government of Péter Magyar voiced readiness to go ahead with the move, as Euronews reported.

EU officials seized on the U-turn and added Kirill's name to the latest list of individuals to be sanctioned.
























Euroviews. The energy transition's next test is security

People paddle along the shoreline as cargo ships are anchored in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Monday, June 1, 2026. (Amirhosein Khorgooi/ISNA via AP)
Copyright Amirhosein Khorgooi/ISNA via AP


By Roberto Bocca, Head of the World Economic Forum’s Centre for Energy and Materials
Published on
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

'Countries that emerge strongest from the next phase of the transition will be those with diversified energy systems that remain secure, affordable and sustainable in a more uncertain world' writes Roberto Bocca from World Economic Forum’s Centre for Energy and Materials in an OpEd for Euronews.

The disruption to energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz sent shockwaves far beyond oil and gas markets. The effects quickly rippled through global shipping, industrial supply chains and household bills, while adding to inflationary and fiscal pressures.

But the crisis also reinforced an urgent reality: for many countries, the energy transition is as much about security and economic resilience as it is about sustainability.

For much of the past decade, the central question shaping the transition debate was whether clean technologies could scale quickly enough to compete with fossil fuels. In many sectors and regions, that question has been answered. In 2025, renewables and nuclear generated 42% of global electricity usage, renewable generation grew by 9%, and global investment in clean energy reached a record $2.3 trillion.

Energy systems that remain affordable, sustainable and resilient under stress

The harder question now is whether countries can build diversified and secure energy systems that remain affordable, sustainable and resilient under stress.

New World Economic Forum research suggests that many countries are struggling to succeed on all three fronts at once. While global progress on clean-energy deployment continued in the last year, the foundations that determine whether progress can last - investment, infrastructure, policy stability and innovation - came under pressure. Energy security showed the clearest signs of strain, as geopolitical tensions, infrastructure bottlenecks and supply-chain concentration grew more acute. The Hormuz crisis only accelerated this trend.

This vulnerability is increasingly shaping how governments think about the energy transition.

Investing in domestic capacity and diversified energy sources

In the past, progress was measured largely by deployment: how quickly or affordably countries could build renewable capacity, scale electric vehicles or attract investment. Today, security has become a more important measure of success: the ability to maintain reliable and affordable energy systems amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.

The countries responding most effectively are reducing their exposure to external shocks by investing in domestic capacity and diversified energy sources.

China offers an example. While it continues to partially depend on imported fossil fuels and domestic coal, it is also accelerating electrification and grid expansion with fast and large-scale renewable deployment. Wind and solar now generate 22% of the nation's electricity. The significance here is not only about pace and scale. It is the objective to reduce exposure to external shocks by building a more resilient and internally integrated energy system.

Europe wants to reduce exposure to potentially volatile imports

Europe is taking a different path towards a similar objective. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, investment in grids, storage, hydrogen, heat pumps and domestic clean-technology manufacturing has become as much a strategic autonomy and competitiveness imperative as a climate one. A key goal is to reduce exposure to potentially volatile imports – though the impact of the Hormuz disruption has reinforced the scale of the challenge.

Brazil, meanwhile, shows what greater resilience can look like. Decades of investment in biofuels, combined with a relatively clean domestic power mix, have left the country less exposed to recent volatility than many of its peers. Renewed investment in ethanol, biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel are deepening that advantage. Together, these efforts help buffer the country from external shocks while advancing its decarbonisation goals.

Japan has set up a national system for stockpiling rare metals

Japan points to another dimension of the resilience challenge: supply-chain security and innovation. Energy security increasingly extends beyond fuels to critical minerals, batteries, semiconductors and grid equipment. A national rare metals stockpiling system helps protect against overseas supply disruptions, while decades of gains in energy efficiency, sustainability, and innovation show how security can be paired with industrial capability. The result is a model in which resilience supports competitiveness rather than simply guarding against risk.

Taken together, these examples underscore a shift in the competitive logic of the transition. Countries that can deliver reliable power from mixed sources, robust infrastructure and secure supply chains will be better placed to attract investment and strengthen industrial capacity. The ability to withstand disruption has become a strategic economic advantage.

Energy security is not separate from the transition

For governments, this will mean focusing not only on deploying renewables, but building the grids, storage and investment frameworks that make systems more resilient. For companies, energy strategy will become inseparable from competitiveness strategy. Manufacturers, data centres and industrial firms are already exposed not just to energy prices, but to grid reliability, fuel supply disruptions and infrastructure constraints. These factors are set to play a growing role in investment decisions, as companies place greater value on certainty and continuity of supply.

The key lesson from the Hormuz disruption is not how vulnerable global markets remain to fossil-fuel shocks. It is that energy security is not separate from the transition itself, but increasingly one of the conditions on which it depends. Without secure and reliable energy, affordability becomes fragile and sustainability becomes harder to sustain.

The countries that emerge strongest from the next phase of the transition will be those with diversified energy systems that remain secure, affordable and sustainable in a more uncertain world.

 

EU-backed green bonds risk financing Chinese clean tech in third countries

Chinese companies are global leaders in clean technologies like solar panels.
Copyright AP Photo

By Luca Bertuzzi
Published on

The EU has launched a €15-20bn green investment fund to boost sustainable projects, but a good share of the money is set to go towards buying Chinese clean technologies – including the same high-risk power inverters Brussels is trying to phase out.

The Global Green Bond Initiative is one of the EU's largest financial instruments to fund sustainable infrastructure and climate-related projects with the bloc's partner countries. Its declared aim is to mobilise between €15 and €20 billion in investments.

But European Commission and EU officials are now warning that some of these investments could end up benefiting Chinese companies, undermining Brussels' policy of diversifying away from Beijing in key supply chains.

In practice, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and other European development institutions will act as anchor investors and provide technical assistance for environment-related projects in third countries.

The green bonds may be used to finance solar farms in Algeria, wastewater treatment in India and a light rail line in the Dominican Republic.

Conceived during the previous legislative term as part of the European Green Deal, the governance framework was only finalised in April this year. In the intervening period, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically.

"The main problem is that, given the market of renewable energy technologies, most of the money will likely go to Chinese companies," a Commission official with direct knowledge of the matter told Euronews. Like others who contributed to this story, they asked to be kept anonymous in order to speak freely.

There is particular concern over high-risk solar inverters, which the EU is trying to phase out. These introduce vulnerabilities in third countries connected with the European energy grid.

No China clause

The issue of "global macroeconomic imbalances" – a reference to China in all but name – will be the main topic of discussion at the European Council on Thursday.

But while Brussels has gradually shifted its trade policy toward Beijing into a defensive position, not all EU instruments have kept pace.

The Commission official pointed out that the Green Bond Initiative was conceived before the EU had fully developed its economic security doctrine – an effort to counter China's growing dominance in key sectors, which is exerted via heavily subsidised firms that push competitors out of the market.

The upshot is that the EU-backed green bonds do not require partner countries to avoid Chinese suppliers and offer no incentive for them to do so.

The question of to handle Chinese suppliers in EU-funded projects abroad has long been a sticking point for European development finance. Brussels struggles to persuade third countries to buy from more expensive non-Chinese vendors unless it can cover the extra cost, and so far, it has been reluctant to do so.

But the imperative of excluding Chinese suppliers is not limited to supply chain dependencies that might be weaponised; it is also increasingly a matter of cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity risk

Last month, the European Commission circulated guidance requesting that all EU-funded projects generating renewable energy phase out high-risk power inverters – meaning Chinese-made ones – citing cybersecurity risks to the EU energy grid.

The concern is that firms that dominate in the solar inverter market, among them Huawei, might be able to remotely manipulate the energy grid, destabilise it, and in a worst-case scenario trigger full blackouts.

The Green Bond Initiative was given the green light before the Commission issued the guidance, which in any case only applies to projects outside the EU from 15 April 2027.

There are now concerns that the investment programme could both increase third countries' exposure to risky Chinese technology and create security risks for Europe's own energy infrastructure.

Energy grids do not operate in isolation, which is why phasing out Chinese inverters at home might make little sense if the same rules are not applied to Europe's immediate neighbours. North African countries, many of which are part of the Green Bond Initiative, are the most exposed.

"Having EU-financed projects built by Chinese companies is precisely what we want to avoid," a second Commission official told Euronews, noting that the Mediterranean region is where China's influence poses the highest risks.

Underlying tensions

The Commission has been pushing the EIB and other European investment institutions to apply the phase-out requirements for risky solar inverters across the board, but both institutions have pushed back and sought exemptions.

In the context of the Green Bond Initiative, since no exclusion mechanism exists, the problem may be as much about governance as procurement.

The Commission is expected to exert pressure on the initiative's fund manager, Amundi, Europe's largest asset manager. But it will have to do so against a project pipeline that appears to have been drawn up without those requirements in mind.

For investment banks, the priority is financial viability and return on investment, whereas supply chain considerations cannot translate into commercially unreasonable costs.

But in a context where critical dependencies are increasingly weaponised by China, and where the EU is increasingly serious about reducing its reliance on Beijing, geopolitical risk is becoming a decisive factor.

"The EIB wants exemptions on everything, the Commission is pushing back on the whole front," a third EU official said. "The situation is still unclear; this back and forth will go on for a while."

The European Commission did not reply to Euronews' request for comment by the time of publication. The EIB declined to comment.

 

Electrification, climate finance and Just Transition: Key outcomes of Bonn Climate Change Conference

UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell  at June climate meeting in Bonn.
Copyright UN Climate Change | Lara Murillo


By Angela Symons
Published on

Despite backsliding on some commitments, the UN climate conference showed glimmers of hope ahead of COP31.

The Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB64) drew to a close today (18 June), laying the groundwork for COP31 in Türkiye in November.

The meetings provide a crucial space for governments who have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to convene and make political decisions on climate action, set targets, draft agreements and assess progress towards existing commitments.

Closing the talks on Thursday, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said: “There remain significant divides, and significant work for the intersessional period ahead… But we have seen a seriousness in tackling key issues, and a determination to find solutions.”

Could a global electrification target aid a fossil fuel phaseout?

Last year’s COP30 in Brazil drew criticism when it ended with a final text that avoided any roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels.

But one fresh idea did emerge from outside the formal talks in Bonn that could act as a complement to ongoing work on national fossil fuel transition roadmaps. Türkiye, which will co-host COP31 with Australia, proposed working towards a global electrification target. It would raise the share of final energy demand met by electricity from just over 20 per cent today to 35 per cent by 2035.

Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe cautiously welcomed the idea but stressed it must be built on renewable energy and efficiency gains, “not on prolonging fossil fuel use through new infrastructure or false solutions”, in the words of the network’s Türkiye policy coordinator, Özlem Katısöz.

Stiell confirmed that the COP31 Presidency had used the talks to announce new targets “for electrification, city resilience and efficiency, and waste” under its wider Action Agenda – which he described as running in parallel with, and equally vital to, the formal negotiations.

With the talks backdropped by the Iran war-linked energy crisis, all eyes will be on COP to address not only the climate risks of fossil fuels, but also the economic and national security risks.

The Just Transition is central to delivering climate action at scale

Offering another glimmer of hope, significant progress was made on what’s known as the ‘Just Transition’.

This aims to ensure that the benefits of moving away from fossil fuels are shared fairly, and the costs do not fall hardest on the workers, communities and countries least equipped to absorb them.

Negotiators made headway on operationalising the Belém Antalya Mechanism (BAM), a framework designed to help countries build just transition principles into their national climate plans – covering everything from worker retraining and economic diversification to how climate finance gets delivered on the ground. It’s expected to be a major outcome at COP31 in November.

“Bonn showed that Just Transition is not a side issue, it is central to whether climate action can be delivered at the speed and scale required, without anyone being left behind,” says James Trinder, international climate policy coordinator at CAN Europe.

He calls on the EU to help secure a strong Just Transition mechanism at COP31, describing it not as a new climate fund, but as a way of ensuring existing finance reaches the right places.

Talks on climate adaptation finance stall

Talks on an agreement made at COP30 to triple international climate adaptation finance, meanwhile, stalled in Bonn, raising the risk of unresolved political fights spilling into COP31.

CAN Europe says that the absence of the US from the negotiating rooms appears to have emboldened other wealthy nations to scale back their own financial commitments.

“Climate finance is not an optional gesture of goodwill – it is the very foundation for global climate cooperation,” says Sven Harmeling, head of climate at CAN Europe. “Cuts to climate and development finance, as we see them happening in some EU Member States, send exactly the wrong signal.”

Stiell also pushed back against any backsliding on existing commitments, telling delegates that “all Parties must be comfortable and confident in restating our existing global commitments – without cherry-picking those that suit tactically in the moment,” pointing specifically to pledges on loss and damage, climate finance and tripling adaptation finance.

He further cautioned governments not to wait for the next round of formal talks to find common ground. “I urge you to bring in your Ministers as soon as possible, in the weeks and months ahead,” he said, “particularly on the thorniest issues.”

TRANS-PLANTS

Glow-in-the-dark plants warn of crop pests

Plant used in the study glowing green, indicating the presence of a virus @IBMCP
Copyright Instituto de Biología Molecular y Celular de Plantas (IBMCP)


By Escarlata Sánchez
Published on

A team of Spanish researchers has created plants that glow in the dark and change colour when infected, allowing early detection of crop pests and diseases with ordinary cameras.

A technology developed by Spanish researchers will make it possible to detect pests and diseases in crops at an early stage thanks to plants that glow in the dark and change colour when infected by viruses.

The research carried out by the Instituto de Biología Molecular y Celular de Plantas (IBMCP), which is part of the CSIC and the Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV), has led to the creation of a biological infection detection system. The study has been published in ‘Nature Communications’ and opens up a new way of identifying diseases in crops.

Emitting different light signals according to the plant’s state of health

Inspired by the bioluminescence of fungi, the team of researchers has developed a system that enables plants to emit different light signals depending on their state of health. The change in illumination reveals the presence of viruses before visible symptoms appear and can be detected with conventional cameras.

The system uses four enzymes that modify a natural plant compound, caffeic acid, to generate a molecule capable of constantly emitting green light as it oxidises. This reaction makes it possible to turn plants into luminous sensors of their own state of health.

Transgenic plants with fungal bioluminescence genes


The team tested the system on transgenic plants of ‘Nicotiana benthamiana’, a species related to tobacco that is commonly used in research. To do so, they introduced fungal bioluminescence genes using modified viruses, which made it possible to visually track how the infection evolved and which areas were affected.

The researchers then created a sentinel system capable of detecting potyvirus infection through a change in the colour of the light emitted by the plant. In the absence of viruses, the plants maintain a constant yellow signal, but when they are infected, an enzyme from the pathogen triggers a colour variation that is visible with low-cost devices, making early detection easier.

Traditional techniques for diagnosing plant diseases, such as PCR or ELISA, offer high accuracy in identifying the genetic material or proteins of viruses. However, their use requires time, specific equipment and specialised laboratory staff.

Sentinel plants able to warn of the first outbreaks

The system could initially be applied to the early monitoring of viral diseases in greenhouses and controlled crops, using sentinel plants able to warn of the first outbreaks.

In the future, this technology could be adapted to other pathogens, such as bacteria and fungi, and become a key tool in the face of the spread of new agricultural threats linked to climate change.

The project also involves the Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas Margarita Salas (CIB-CSIC), the Central Research Unit in Medicine at the Universitat de València and the MRC Laboratory of Medical Sciences in London, which have contributed to the development of this early detection technology.

  

Fact check: Can EU countries restrict or ban Israeli settlement imports?

American volunteer prepares to lay down a net ahead of olive picking, next to the settlement West Bank Jewish settlement of Eli, near Nablus. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty)
Copyright AP Photo

By Noa Schumann
Published on

Several EU states are weighing measures against goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights – all considered illegal under international law. Some argue that rules that exclude such goods from Israel’s tariff-free trade deal are not being properly enforced.

Calls for tougher measures against goods originating from Israeli settlements are gaining momentum across Europe.

France and Sweden have urged the European Commission to adopt EU-wide restrictions, while countries including Belgium, Spain, Slovenia and Ireland have examined national measures targeting settlement imports.

The debate comes amid the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In 2025, Israeli Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich boasted that 69 new settlements had been approved in recent years, describing it as a record level of expansion.

Data published by the Israeli settlement monitoring group Peace Now indicates that 103 new settlements have been approved in the West Bank since the current Israeli government took office in late 2022.

While the issue is expected to feature prominently at upcoming talks among EU foreign ministers in July, questions are mounting over whether it's legally possible for individual member states to take measures against settlement goods under EU law.

How does the EU currently treat Israeli settlements?

The European Union distinguishes between Israel proper and Israeli settlements in territories occupied since 1967.

Under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, goods originating from these settlements are not eligible for preferential tariff treatment. They may still be imported into the EU, but without the duty-free advantage granted to products originating from within Israel's internationally recognised borders.

The European Commission has also issued guidance requiring products originating from Israeli settlements to be clearly labelled as such.

Since 2004, Israeli exporters have been required to provide postal codes identifying the place of production, enabling the EU to distinguish between goods made in Israel and those produced in settlements.

In 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that food products from Israeli settlements must state their origin on labels to avoid misleading consumers.

There is currently no EU-wide ban on imports from Israeli settlements.

Investigations raise questions over enforcement

Several recent investigations have raised questions about whether these rules are being properly implemented.

According to a new investigation by the international NGO Global Echo Litigation Center, products originating from Israeli settlements continue to enter European markets free of tariffs despite existing restrictions.

The organisation analysed more than 30,000 administrative trade records covering exports from Israel to the EU member states between 2017 and 2026.

Based on that analysis, the NGO, which was founded by Israeli and Palestinian lawyers, estimates that around one-fifth of Israeli shipments destined for the EU originated from settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Palestinian farmers cut onions at a field belong to Jewish settlers, just outside the West Bank Jordan valley Jewish settlement of Tomer. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)
Palestinian farmers cut onions at a field belong to Jewish settlers, just outside the West Bank Jordan valley Jewish settlement of Tomer. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty) AP Photo

Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man is the founder and executive director of the Global Litigation Center and an expert in international humanitarian law. She told Euronews' fact-checking team, The Cube, that the investigation, based on testimonies from industry representatives, identified three main methods allegedly used to obtain preferential tariff treatment for settlement products.

The first, she said, is what investigators describe as "hiding in plain sight", where paperwork lists Israeli origin and eligibility for preferential treatment, while the actual place of production is redacted. In some cases, the true origin is replaced with an Israeli address that does not correspond to where the goods were produced.

A second method involves mislabelling, with products declared as Israeli-made despite being produced in settlements.

The third consists of mixing settlement goods with products made inside Israel and packaging them together under a single "Product of Israel" label, making their origin difficult to distinguish.

A vineyard in Jewish West Bank settlement of Shilo, near Nablus. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty)
A vineyard in Jewish West Bank settlement of Shilo, near Nablus. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty) AP Photo

A separate investigation by +972 Magazine, an independent online media outlet founded by Palestinian and Israeli journalists, reaches similar conclusions.

In January 2026, it reported that some Israeli settlement wineries exported bottles labelled simply as "Made in Israel", without reference to their origin in the West Bank.

Trade experts say such cases illustrate the challenges authorities face when verifying the origin of imported goods. Agnès Bertrand-Sanz, humanitarian expert and spokesperson for Oxfam Belgium, highlighted the difficulties faced by European customs officials.

"The main responsibility to check the origin of a product lies with the customs authorities, and it really depends on their capacity," she said. "There are so many products arriving in our ports, in the port of Antwerp, in the port of Rotterdam. Of course, it's done on a case-by-case basis, and they don't have time to check everything."

Martin Konečný, director of the Brussels-based think tank the European Middle East Project, said enforcement is further complicated because Israel considers settlements part of its own territory.

Growing calls for stronger measures

Against this backdrop, several European governments argue that the current framework is insufficient.

In a letter co-signed by France and Sweden and sent to the European Commission in April 2026, and seen by The Cube, the two countries call for additional measures targeting products originating from Israeli settlements. Their proposals include tariffs on settlement goods and restrictions on settlement imports through export licensing schemes.

In an interview with Euronews, French deputy trade minister Nicolas Forissier stressed that the letter advocated a pan-European approach.

"With our Swedish friends, we wrote to the Commission and insisted on the necessity to have a common European position on this question, rapidly," he said.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas speaks with the media as she arrives for a meeting of EU foreign ministers at the European Council. (AP Photo/Marius)
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas speaks with the media as she arrives for a meeting of EU foreign ministers at the European Council. (AP Photo/Marius) AP Photo

He added that the EU should not permit imports originating from territories deemed illegally occupied under international law.

"We cannot accept any import of products that are, in fact, produced in illegally occupied territories regarding international law," Forissier said.

Sweden and France argue that settlements are illegal under international law and therefore should not benefit from trade arrangements negotiated with Israel.

Konečný voiced a similar opinion, noting that "the settlements are not a part of Israel."

"They are outside Israel's territory and therefore are not covered by the Association Agreement," he said. “They are also not covered by Israel's membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO) because they are not part of the territory of a WTO member under international law."

Member states push ahead with their own measures

With an EU-wide approach still up in the air, several European governments have taken matters into their own hands.

In late December 2025, Spain implemented a package of trade restrictions against Israel, including a ban on imports of goods originating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

Slovenia has also moved towards prohibiting imports of goods originating from settlements, alongside a separate ban on the export, import and transit of arms and military equipment to and from Israel.

Belgium has announced plans to restrict imports from territories it considers illegally occupied, although no legislation has yet been adopted. Some of the measures put forward so far focus on reducing institutional and economic cooperation rather than imposing a direct trade ban.

Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez speaks with the media as he arrives for an EU summit at the European Council. (AP Photo/Omar Havana)
Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez speaks with the media as he arrives for an EU summit at the European Council. (AP Photo/Omar Havana) AP Photo

Ireland is expected to introduce legislation targeting goods originating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank by mid-July 2026.

The Netherlands has meanwhile examined measures aimed at limiting trade in products from the settlements and has indicated it could consider broader restrictions in the future.

Despite these moves by individual member states, any attempt to restrict imports from Israeli settlements could face obstacles. Trade policy is an EU competence, while trade relations with Israel are governed by the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which remains in force.

A European Commission spokesperson told The Cube that trade policy falls under "the EU's exclusive competence" and that "any national measure must be assessed for its compatibility with EU law."

Regarding Spain, the Commission said that Madrid had informed Brussels of its plans but had not yet formally presented the legal text detailing the measures.

A legal debate over the EU-Israel Agreement

Whether member states — or even the EU itself — can legally ban settlement imports remains disputed among legal experts and NGOs.

Konečný argues that the EU-Israel Association Agreement does not include settlement products because settlements fall outside Israel's internationally recognised territory.

Loran Bartels, professor of international law at the University of Cambridge, took a more cautious view.

He said the agreement states that quantitative restrictions on imports and measures having an equivalent effect are prohibited between the EU and Israel.

In his view, this applies not only to products eligible for preferential treatment, but to all goods physically coming from Israel into the EU.

The practical distinction between Israeli and settlement goods remains contentious. As Omer-Man notes, products from both Israel and the settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights are exported through Israeli ports and handled by Israeli authorities, thus physically departing from Israel proper.

An Israeli soldier stands guard during the inauguration ceremony for the newly legalized Jewish settlement of Yatziv. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)
An Israeli soldier stands guard during the inauguration ceremony for the newly legalized Jewish settlement of Yatziv. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg) AP Photo

Bartels argues that the EU already differentiates settlement products by excluding them from preferential tariffs and requiring specific origin labels.

An import ban, he said, would represent "a qualitatively different measure", as it would go beyond restricting trade preferences and instead prohibit such goods from entering the EU market altogether.

Schaeffer Omer-Man, however, reaches a different conclusion. She argues that the EU's current approach places it in a "compromised situation" that is difficult to reconcile with international law. She also notes that Israel has long opposed any distinction between Israeli and settlement goods, which it sees as "an affront" and contrary to its interests.

The question of whether the EU could take stronger measures also raises the issue of economic leverage.

Michael Lynk, former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories and associate professor of law at Western University in Canada, argues that the EU has more leverage than is often assumed.

"The EU is Israel's largest trading partner," he said, noting that bilateral trade exceeds €43 billion a year and accounts for around a third of Israel’s global trade.

By contrast, trade with Israel represents less than 1% of the EU's external trade. As Lynk puts it: "This trading relationship is far more important to Israel than it is to the EU."




‘Gwynocide’: Gwyneth Paltrow facing backlash for 'tone deaf' luxury Israel real estate advert

‘Gwynocide’: Gwyneth Paltrow faces backlash for 'tone deaf' luxury Israel real estate advert
Copyright AP Photo - Canva

By David Mouriquand
Published on

The Oscar-winning actress has appeared in an advert for luxury penthouses in Israel. The backlash has been intense, with one celebrity asking whether Paltrow is “actually a really, really nasty person” or just “stupid”.

Oscar-winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow has found herself at the heart of an epic backlash, with critics calling her “tone deaf”, “stupid”, and referring to her recent shameless stunt as “Gwynocide”.

The 53-year-old actress turned lifestyle entrepreneur with her brand Goop has appeared in a promotional video for 51 Park, a 51-storey luxury residential development in Herzliya, just north of Tel Aviv.

In the cringeworthy spot, Paltrow narrates a morning routine and praises the appeal of park‑side buildings.

“There’s a reason the world’s most iconic buildings are by a park,” she says.

When asked if the luxury building is in New York. She replies: “Herzliya. Israel.”

This clip has prompted a wave of criticism on social platforms, with commenters citing the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis. Indeed, mere miles away from 51 Park, Palestinians are being killed and displaced by settlers and the Israeli military. According to a recent analysis from Oxfam, more Palestinians have been killed in the last three years than in the previous 17 years combined.

While Paltrow, who was raised in an interfaith Jewish-Christian family, did not post the clip herself, many commenters posted Palestinian flags and "Free Palestine" messages on her most recent Instagram posts.

One user on X wrote: "Total moral degradation. While children in Gaza face genocide, starvation, and daily massacres, Gwyneth Paltrow is busy promoting luxury apartments in Israel. No conscience, no ethics just pure complicity with an occupying regime. Absolutely repulsive."

Another posted: "Disgusting woman. Anything for a bit of extra cash I guess."

One X user said: “I used to love Gwyneth Paltrow because of her acting skills. I have not missed a single movie of hers till now. Today I feel like throwing up. For a few bucks, which she already had in abundance, she sold her soul to the devil by promoting a residential development in Israel being developed on a stolen Palestinian land.”

Check out some of the reactions below:

Several public figures also chimed in, calling the advert out for its glaring lack of sensitivity and labelling Paltrow as “complicit”.

Alana Hadid, activist and sister of models Bella and Gigi Hadid, called the campaign "tone deaf" and "complicit”, while influencer Matt Bernstein slammed Paltrow for her participation in the ad, saying: "The level of greed and depravity is truly incomprehensible."

Colin Firth’s ex-wife, Livia Giuggioli, criticised Paltrow for her “disgusting” participation in the advertising campaign and announced she has cancelled Paltrow’s upcoming visit to her farm in Italy.

“I just cancelled Gwyneth Paltrow,” Giuggioli said in a recent Instagram video. “She was supposed to come to the farm in a couple of weeks’ time on a tour, a soil-to-fork farm experience, and we just cancelled her because what she did is completely unacceptable.”

Giuggiolo added: “Making an ad for a luxury condo is as disgusting as it can be for someone [with] privilege. How detached are you from reality? You’re either so detached that you need to be cancelled, because you live in another world. Or you’re actually a really, really nasty person. Or you are stupid. Which are you, Gwyneth Paltrow?”

Paltrow has yet to address the backlash publicly, so the question goes unanswered for now.

Paltrow isn't the only high‑profile celebrity that has faced scrutiny for business investments involving Israeli companies or projects. Last year, we reported that Leonardo DiCaprio faced similar backlash for co-financing a luxury eco-hotel in Israel. DiCaprio had previously been involved in several projects in Israel, including investments in Mobli, a social media startup, and Aleph Farms, a farmed meat company.

Israel has been accused by several human rights organizations of committing genocide in Gaza. Last week, Amnesty International released a 149-page report accusing the Israeli government of carrying out a campaign of “state-sanctioned, state-driven and state-implemented” ethnic cleansing in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly denied the allegations, saying its military campaign was aimed at defeating Hamas.