Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.

EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.

Find the full transcript below:

Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich now faces an entry ban in France.

The sanction remains largely symbolic, yet it carries weight.

Why do other European Union countries refrain from sanctioning members of the Israeli government?

Six nations have now chosen to sanction Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Besides France, the group includes the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The rationale for the sanction is clear: Smotrich actively advances the annexation of the West Bank. He is widely viewed as responsible for settlement growth and rising violence in Palestine.

For context, since 2023 at least one hundred seventeen Palestinian communities have been fully or partially displaced, according to the United Nations. Around 6,000 people have been forced from their homes by Israeli settlers.

In recent months the annexation process has accelerated. In February the Israeli government introduced a land registration system for the occupied Palestinian territories, a step that simplifies land expropriation.

So what do the sanctions against Smotrich actually entail?

Simply put, he is barred from entering the six countries listed earlier. The step has limited practical effect, but it conveys a political signal.

A few weeks ago France also sanctioned Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister.

He attracted international criticism in May after releasing a video in which he publicly humiliated members of a flotilla attempting to deliver aid to Gaza.

His actions were even condemned by the European Union.

So why does the EU not sanction either Ben-Gvir or Smotrich?

The straightforward answer is the absence of political consensus among the 27 member states. EU sanctions against individuals require unanimity in the Council of the European Union.

The member states stay divided between those opposing increased pressure on Israel and those advocating tougher steps.

The latter group includes France, Ireland, Slovenia and Spain.

In fact Slovenia imposed entry bans on both Smotrich and Ben-Gvir as early as last year.

There is also the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Kaja Kallas, who seeks a firmer approach toward Israel.

She has already persuaded EU countries to adopt sanctions against several so-called violent settlers. These are private individuals and entities that actively support settlement expansion and annexation efforts.

Yet she has not convinced all 27 member states to target members of the Israeli government.

As noted earlier, one route around the unanimity rule exists: trade measures, which can be adopted by a qualified majority.

Even there, progress remains slow.

For now the EU does not even wish to discuss banning products from illegal Israeli settlements.

This holds despite mounting pressure from several member states and civil society groups.

What does the present situation look like?

Products made in settlements deemed illegal under international law continue to enter the European Union. The sole condition is correct origin labelling, and they face standard customs duties unlike other Israeli goods.

But let us be clear: those duties are not punitive. They represent the normal tariffs applied to countries lacking a preferential trade agreement with the EU.

For the countries mentioned earlier that situation remains unacceptable.

I asked the European Commission why it has not proposed an embargo on settlement products, similar to its proposal to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

The Commission avoided the question and referred me back to the Association Agreement discussion. On settlement products, no comment.

Now, no comment does not necessarily indicate unwillingness to act.

What it does suggest, however, is that no obvious technical barriers exist. This remains ultimately a political choice.