This is an opinion article. The views expressed belong to the author.
The Government’s response often follows a familiar logic: foreign policy is largely a European matter, sanctions require EU coordination, and Luxembourg is too small to act alone.
But what if we are asking the wrong question?
The question is not whether Luxembourg can prevent the genocide on its own. The question is whether Luxembourg has properly examined its own role and whether its actions are consistent with its obligations under international law.
Earlier this year, legal analyses commissioned by the Chamber of Deputies concluded that Luxembourg has obligations relating to due diligence, non-assistance, non-recognition and cooperation with international justice mechanisms. In other words, Luxembourg cannot simply look away and wait for Brussels to decide. It has responsibilities of its own.
That raises uncomfortable questions.
Why does Luxembourg continue to maintain a Trade and Investment Office in Tel Aviv whose mission includes attracting Israeli businesses and facilitating commercial partnerships? Why were Israeli technology companies promoted through events such as Nexus while parliamentarians were still asking what due diligence had been performed regarding military applications, surveillance, cybersecurity, settlement-related activities and dual-use technologies? And why has the methodology used for these assessments not been made publicly available?
Why has Luxembourg’s public pension fund invested in companies identified in United Nations documentation relating to settlement activities? Why have Israeli government bonds been listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange? And why should citizens be expected to trust that adequate human-rights assessments have been carried out when the results are not publicly accessible?
These are not abstract questions. They concern how Luxembourg’s institutions use public resources, manage financial relationships and assess the risks associated with economic cooperation.
Consider telecommunications. Luxembourg-incorporated Altice International has been cited in discussions concerning telecommunications infrastructure linked to Israeli settlements. The question is not whether the company has been found guilty of a crime. It is whether the relevant activities have been adequately examined, whether potential legal and ethical risks have been assessed, and whether the public has been informed of the outcome.
Consider pharmaceuticals. Students and researchers at the University of Luxembourg sought information about cooperation agreements involving TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries and other institutional partnerships. TEVA is well known for its contributions in the IDF and in the illegal settlements to the point that recently in UK, Royal College of Pharmacy Divested from it. Our students, in University of Luxembourg, requests ultimately reached the Commission d’accès aux documents. At the heart of the debate was a straightforward issue: transparency. What relationships existed, what due diligence had been conducted, and why should citizens have to fight for information about institutional partnerships?
The Guardian: Second UK health body drops Israeli drug firm after activist pressure
Consider the International Bazaar. Why is the Israeli stand welcomed without greater scrutiny of the products and political messaging presented there? Reports concerning products marketed as originating from occupied territory, including wine associated with the occupied Golan Heights and Dead Sea products, raise questions about the distinction between Israeli and settlement-origin goods. The distribution of maps depicting the occupied West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” raises a further concern: how public events may legitimize contested political narratives and contribute to the marginalization of Palestinian identity. If such materials are presented at an event hosted or supported by public institutions, what standards of scrutiny apply?
Consider technology. Artificial intelligence, cybersecurity platforms and surveillance technologies increasingly blur the line between civilian and military use. Luxembourg promotes itself as a technology hub and has encouraged commercial cooperation with Israeli companies in these sectors. This makes robust due diligence all the more important.
The NSO Group, the Israeli company behind Pegasus spyware, has become a prominent example of the human-rights risks associated with surveillance technology. Pegasus has been linked to the targeting of journalists, human-rights defenders and other members of civil society. There is no need to claim, without evidence, that Luxembourg directly enabled NSO Group’s activities to recognize the broader issue: when governments and businesses promote international technology partnerships, what safeguards ensure that such cooperation does not contribute to serious human-rights abuses?
These questions demand more than assurances that appropriate checks may have been carried out.
If the checks exist, why are they not embedded in clear, enforceable regulations? Why should due diligence depend on discretionary best efforts rather than transparent, consistent standards? And if assessments have been completed, why not publish them, subject to legitimate and narrowly defined confidentiality requirements?
Transparency should not be controversial. It should be a basic requirement of responsible governance. After all, the shared goal of civil society and the government should be not to have Luxembourg be complicit with the genocide in Gaza and Palestine.
When public institutions, public investments, universities and taxpayers’ money are involved, citizens have a right to understand how decisions are made, which risks are assessed and what safeguards are in place. Commercial interests cannot automatically take precedence over obligations to respect international law and protect human rights.
Luxembourg should not be asked to solve the Middle East.
Luxembourg should be asked to examine itself.
Are our investments, trade-promotion activities, university partnerships and research collaborations consistent with our legal, ethical and moral obligations?
The Chamber’s own scientific experts have already identified responsibilities that Luxembourg must take seriously. The real question is whether the country is willing to verify, transparently and systematically, that it is meeting them.
Recently, Letz Act for Palestine published the second edition of From Silence to Sanctions: Luxembourg’s Legal Imperative on Palestine, expanding the discussion of Luxembourg’s legal obligations and the practical measures available to the country.
On 15 October, the Chamber of Deputies is due to discuss the legal analyses produced by its own scientific service. That same morning, from 08:30, citizens will gather outside the Chamber to demand accountability.
They will not be asking Luxembourg to solve the conflict alone. They will be asking something far more immediate: that Luxembourg examine its own decisions, disclose its assessments and act on its responsibilities.
Is Luxembourg living up to the obligations it already has?
A country that believes in the rule of law should not fear scrutiny.
On the contrary, it should be welcomed.
