More than 457,000 European citizens signed a petition calling for a complete suspension of the European Union Partnership Agreement with Israel within the first month of this initiative.
The petition, which was launched on January 13 as an initiative of officially registered European citizens, needs to reach one million signatures from at least seven EU member states by January 13 next year to begin formal consideration by the European Commission. It’s not a symbolic appeal. This is a mechanism built into the EU’s democratic framework, designed to translate the will of the people into institutional review.
The speed and geographic spread of this mobilization is important. Demands to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement are no longer limited to street demonstrations and activist circles. It entered the formal democratic structure of the EU.
The petition calls for a halt, saying Israel is violating Article 2 of the Association Agreement, which makes respect for human rights and international law a condition of partnership. As the initiative states, “EU citizens cannot accept that the EU upholds agreements that contribute to legitimizing and financing states that commit crimes against humanity and war crimes.” The text also mentions the large-scale killing of civilians in Gaza, forced displacement, destruction of hospitals and medical infrastructure, blockade of humanitarian aid, and failure to comply with International Court of Justice orders.
As of Monday, the initiative had collected 457,950 signatures, more than 45 percent of the required signatures in just one month. The signatories come from all 27 EU member states without exception. This is not a regional spike. It’s continental.
The distribution of signatures reveals more than the raw numbers. France alone has 203,182 signatories, or nearly 45% of the total. This figure reflects the country’s long tradition of solidarity mobilization, the mass demonstrations sustained throughout the genocidal war in Gaza, and the clear positioning of key political actors such as La France Insoumise. France has emerged as a key driver of this institutional push.
Spain follows with 60,087 signatures, followed by Italy with 54,821, a particularly notable number considering the presence of a right-wing government that openly supports Israel. Belgium has registered 20,330 signatures from a population of about 12 million, reflecting its relative high level of involvement. In the Nordic region, Finland with 12,649 signatures, Sweden with 15,267 signatures and Denmark with 8,295 signatures show continued participation. In Ireland, the petition reached 11,281 signatures from a population of just over 5 million people.
Some of these countries have already exceeded national standards set under EU regulations. France, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Italy and Sweden all have more than the minimum number of signatures required to count towards the seven member state requirement. This is an important development. This means that the initiative is not just increasing in volume, but already meets the criteria of geographic legitimacy built into the European Citizens’ Engagement Mechanism.
In the Netherlands, the petition has 20,304 signatures, approaching the national signature threshold. Poland has 22,308 signatures, reflecting efforts beyond Western Europe. Even in smaller states such as Slovenia with 1,703 signatures, Luxembourg with 900 signatures and Portugal with 4,945 signatures, participation is visible and measurable.
Germany presents a clear contrast. Despite being the EU’s most populous member state and the site of some of the largest demonstrations against Israel’s genocidal campaign in the Gaza Strip, the petition attracted 11,461 German signatures, just 17% of Germany’s national standard of 69,120. This gap between visible street mobilization and formal institutional participation highlights the unique political and legal environment in Germany, where pro-Palestinian expression faces restrictions and successive governments have maintained near-unconditional support for Israel as a national policy. A relatively low percentage does not indicate a lack of opposing views. Rather, it points to the structural constraints within which dissent operates. Nevertheless, over 11,000 citizens have officially registered their support, indicating that institutional commitment is taking place even under political pressure.
Taken together, these patterns reveal something deeper than petition momentum. Despite more than two years of genocidal war, ethnic cleansing and systematic destruction of civilian life in Gaza, solidarity across Europe remains intact. It has moved from protest slogans and street mobilization to formal democratic means that demand institutional responses.
Petitions do not automatically change policy. The European Commission is not legally bound to suspend the association agreement even if the initiative eventually reaches one million signatures. However, the political implications are significant. If this initiative is successful, the European Commission will formally comply with requests under the EU’s own human rights provisions. It would prove that calls for a halt are rooted in widespread and measurable public support across multiple member states.
The European Union has long portrayed itself as a normative state committed to international law and human rights. Clause 2 of the partnership agreement is fundamental. If hundreds of thousands, or even more than a million, European citizens insist on applying this principle consistently, EU institutions will face a test of credibility.
This petition is more than just a number of signatures. It is an indicator of political will. This shows that in countries such as France, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Ireland and the Nordic countries, citizens are activating the EU’s own democratic mechanisms to demand accountability.
Whether this effort ultimately reaches 1 million people or not, one reality has already been established. Demands to end the EU-Israel partnership have entered Europe’s institutional bloodstream. It can no longer be dismissed as marginal rhetoric. It is embedded in the union’s formal democratic process and represents a significant development in Europe’s response to the genocide in Gaza.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
