Why Jürgen Hardt Is Urging EU Sanctions on Itamar Ben-Gvir

The same interview also included support for encouraging Palestinians to leave Gaza permanently and a claim that the territory should be viewed as entirely Israeli. Reporting linked those views to support for establishing Israeli settlements in Gaza.

For Hardt, the controversy was consequently about more than one inflammatory quotation. The remarks presented a combination of intensified violence, dehumanizing rhetoric, displacement and settlement expansion—positions that he viewed as incompatible with the principles he said EU sanctions should defend.

Hardt’s argument about Israel–Europe relations

Hardt also made a broader political argument: an Israeli government without Ben-Gvir or Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich would, in his view, give Europe and Israel a better chance of rebuilding constructive relations.

That argument separates the Israeli government and its wider population from two far-right ministers whose public positions have become a diplomatic liability. It also frames sanctions as a signal about conduct by individual officials, rather than necessarily as a measure directed at Israel as a whole.

What pressure does this place on Germany’s government?

Hardt’s position matters because he speaks for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group on foreign policy. His appeal puts pressure on Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul to reconsider Germany’s previous resistance to blacklisting Ben-Gvir or, at minimum, to avoid blocking EU action.

But the available evidence does not establish a formal change in Berlin’s policy. Earlier reporting identified Germany as opposing proposals to blacklist an Israeli minister and restrict trade with West Bank settlements. Later reporting also described Germany as resisting a proposed settlement-trade ban, with Wadephul arguing that unanimity was required.

Hardt’s intervention should therefore be understood as an influential political appeal—not as a government decision or proof that Germany will support sanctions.

Why EU sanctions have been difficult to agree

The EU has already considered sanctions against Ben-Gvir over his treatment of activists aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla, a Gaza-bound aid mission. At a June meeting of foreign ministers, member states failed to reach consensus. The EU’s foreign-policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said many countries had proposed sanctions, but the necessary agreement was not reached.

The issue is procedural as well as political: EU foreign-policy sanctions require unanimity among member states. A single government’s opposition can therefore prevent an EU-wide listing.

Several countries have taken separate measures. In June 2025, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway announced sanctions against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich over incitement of violence against Palestinian communities. France and Ireland also imposed entry bans on the ministers in 2026, although those national measures do not amount to an EU-wide sanctions regime.

The separate dispute over settlement trade

EU ministers have also debated restrictions on trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Options discussed included an import-licensing system, prohibitive tariffs and a ban. A ban received the strongest backing at a July meeting, but the bloc remained divided and did not approve a common restriction.

That debate is related to Hardt’s appeal but is not the same measure. Sanctioning Ben-Gvir would target an individual minister; restricting settlement trade would affect commercial relations connected to settlements. Both proposals face the political difficulty of securing agreement across the EU.

What happens next?

Hardt’s statement increases pressure on Germany’s governing conservatives and gives fresh political momentum to calls for action against Ben-Gvir. Germany’s Social Democrats have also used a critical tone toward the Israeli ministers, and Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil later called for serious consideration of EU sanctions, describing Ben-Gvir’s comments as inhumane.

Still, neither Hardt’s appeal nor the condemnation that followed guarantees sanctions. The evidence available here shows continuing disagreement in Berlin and Brussels. Until Germany changes its position and all EU member states agree, Ben-Gvir’s comments remain the subject of political pressure rather than a completed EU sanctions decision.