,

Gender equality

Let me first reassure those who are worried about my grammar: I didn’t make a typo. Equality is the most appropriate term in this case. And correct. If you take the time to read the post, you might be able to understand why.

We are not just talking about formal equality of rights. We are talking about equality in practice – about the actual possibility for every individual to live, work and make decisions without the limitations determined by gender.

Both within the European Union and beyond, we often hear praise for progress in the field of gender equality. And it is true – steps have been made. But it is also true that we are still far from the goal. This very realization was one of the key guiding principles in the preparation of the European Parliament resolution on the pay and pension gap – adopted today. I participated in it as the main rapporteur, i.e. the Parliament’s negotiator for the text, demands and guidelines.

Because inequality, even if it is minor, is unfortunately not a thing of the past. It is a thing of the present.

But we have to start in the past.

One of the most famous slogans of the fight for workers’ rights is: “We do not want to be second-class workers”. I believe that each of us has heard it. And yes – I use the masculine form on purpose.

In 1968, this slogan was carried on banners by women in Great Britain. Female workers at the Ford factory, including Rose Boland, found that they were placed in a lower pay bracket than their male colleagues, despite doing equally demanding work.

They did the same work. They were less valued. And paid less.

So they went on strike. Their strike halted car production for weeks and dealt a serious blow to the British economy. And only then – when the system came to a standstill – were their demands heard.

It is no coincidence that the key role in the changes was played by politician Barbara Castle, who implemented the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act.

But this was not the first such case.

Have you heard of Gabrielle Defrenne? A Belgian flight attendant for Sabena Airlines, where women were paid less than men and had to leave their jobs at the age of 40.

She decided to sue, thus initiating one of the most important court cases in the history of the European Union.

The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled clearly: equal pay is not just a principle. It is a fundamental right. This decision has cemented equality at the very foundation of European law.

Now let’s skip forward almost 70 years. To today.

  • 12% average gender pay gap
  • 25% pension gap
  • 28% of women work part-time due to caring responsibilities
  • 74% of women perform care and household work on a daily basis
  • 22% risk of poverty for women
  • 35% of women experience psychological or sexual harassment

This is not a statistic. This is reality. A reality that exists despite legislation, despite rights, despite progress. And THAT is WHY we drafted a resolution on the pay and pension gap.

The report aims for equality in education, employment and the sharing of care work. It highlights women’s contribution to economic growth, the importance of intersectionality and the need for decisive action at EU and Member State level.

We placed special emphasis on work evaluation.

Today, sectors such as health, care, upbringing and education – sectors dominated by women – are systematically undervalued. And yet these very sectors are the foundation of social cohesion.

The pay gap is not a coincidence. It is a consequence. The consequence of horizontal segregation of the labor market, the undervaluation of feminized professions, and the unequal distribution of unpaid care work.

We therefore demand action: consistent implementation of the directives, a European supply strategy and a new European supply deal, backed by concrete investments.

We demand an action plan to close the gap. Guidelines for gender-neutral job evaluation. Implementation of the Istanbul Convention. And full implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive.

If these measures are implemented, we could also talk about real progress.

But unfortunately, the world is not perfect. This was also shown by the debate at the March plenary session, where some women took a stand against women’s rights – under the guise of “traditional values” that are being re-established.

In recent years, the “traditional” role of a woman who exclusively takes care of the household and raises children has begun to be romanticized through the influence of social media.

Of course, everyone has the right to choose and I support anyone who makes that choice of their own free will. However, on social media, these “traditional women”, who are supposedly unemployed, bring the majority of the income into the household, thereby ensuring financial independence and the ability to make a different decision at any time in their lives.

At the same time, they are bringing a dangerous movement into society, reducing the role of women to that of housewife, mother, and caregiver, without regard for financial independence. And that benefits no one. Not even the most “traditional” men.

The fact is: women make up half of the population. And we are the foundation of society – from the family to the economy and politics.

Today we stand on the shoulders of women like Rose Boland and Gabrielle Defrenne. And even more so on the shoulders of our mothers, who throughout their lives, in one way or another, faced or fought for their place in society. For equality.

Now it’s up to us to shape the world for future generations. At least half of them will be women. And I will never agree to the curtailment of rights or the perpetuation of inequality. Equality is not an ideology. It is the foundation of a just society. And equality does not happen by itself.

It is a decision. And every decision can build a society… or tear it down. My decisions will always be directed towards a society where equality is not a privilege. And where no one is “second-class”. That is the society I want.

For us. And for all who are yet to come.

/0 Comments/by

Choice is not perfection. Choice is direction.

It’s like this: I have never – and I never will – support someone because I have to. Because it’s easier that way.

No. I don’t have to.

But I have always – and I always will – tell the truth. I will now too.

I don’t always get everything right. But the difference between me and many people is probably that I have no problem saying it. To anyone. At any time. Believe me, each of my colleagues knows exactly what I think.

When it comes to fundamental issues of international law and humanity, I don’t expect silence. I expect arguments. Still.

But … the world is really turned upside down when those who befriend genocidal people and constantly relativize such issues suddenly appear today as their greatest advocates.

The world. Is. Really. Turned. Upside. Standards are not a matter of comfort.

When people are being eliminated with “you’re too young”, I don’t expect additional patronage. I expect responsibility.

Standards are not a matter of years.

Standards are a matter of whether you are willing to play by them… or to walk away. Hiring actors from abroad when arguments and responsibilities run out?!

This is no longer just a campaign. This is a revelation. Methods that do not belong in a democratic world. A revelation of how far some people are willing to go to return to power.

If we accept such methods as normal, we will get even more of them.

This, dear readers of this article, is the essence of these elections. Will we say that there are limits? Are there standards? Or will we admit that there will be no more? When standards fall, democracy falls.

And let there be no misunderstanding! Politics is not above people. Politics is not above rules. There must be NO tolerance for corruption.

On Sunday, we are not only deciding who will sit in the National Assembly or who will lead the government.

Go to the elections. Set a standard. If you don’t, others will. Except then you won’t have to choose anymore.

I will. Freely.

Not because it’s a perfect choice. But it’s a choice that I can calmly say: I know I made the right one.

Because patriotism without standards is not love for the country for me. It’s just an excuse for (the desire to return to) power.

And because it’s about whether we’ll still have the right to choose… or whether we’ll just continue to accept.

Therefore… Freedom.

/0 Comments/by

‘Chat control’ 1.0.

In the past few days, we have – as I announced – met with the EU Council and the member states.

We met twice. Negotiated? Not once.

We, the parliamentary negotiators, were ready for a compromise: an extension of the current rules, but with clear safeguards. And above all – without the possibility of unlimited inspection of ALL people’s PRIVATE communications.

The EU Council did not budge a millimeter. The only thing they wanted to discuss was the length of the extension of the current rules. They did not want to disclose the content.

Speaking of content: currently, there is a so-called temporary legislative exception that allows technology companies to voluntarily scan private communications in search of child sexual abuse material. This is precisely the core of the problem: this allows for broad invasions of privacy and opens the door to indiscriminate surveillance of all communications. Of all and from all.

This exception is supposed to be temporary, because negotiations are underway at the same time on legislation that would regulate these matters in the long term. But this “temporary” was extended again and again. Two years, then for another two years, then for another two years…

I could not agree to this, and because of this, during the negotiations I once again heard the well-known insinuations: that we do not care about children. Today I am even reading statements that we are protecting sexual predators. And this from some colleagues from the largest political group. The one from which two parties in Slovenia come. You can guess which two, right?

Such manipulations are not new. But it is a new reality that we are also seeing at home these days: how quickly interference in communications can turn into a political weapon.

And the protection of children cannot and must not become an excuse for mass surveillance of everyone’s private communications.

So we have not reached an agreement. This means that these temporary rules will expire at the beginning of April. There is no new legislation yet and we do not know when it will be.

Journalists therefore asked me if all these “negotiations” were a waste of time. Not for me. My conscience is clear.

The fight against child abuse must be effective. But what the negotiators on the other side wanted is not the solution.

And that is precisely why the rules are important. And that is precisely why the electoral reminder is in place: if you cannot vote on Sunday, you can still vote early today and tomorrow.

Because democracy is also about going to the polls – before someone else starts deciding for us.

/0 Comments/by
,

“Blank intrusion into everyone’s private communications on the internet is not child protection.”

On Wednesday, March 11, 2026, MEP Irena Joveva participated in the plenary debate entitled Child Sexual Abuse Online: Protect Children, Not Perpetrators, where she emphasized that everyone agrees that child protection is essential, but the proposed approaches, which involve mass interference in private communications on the Internet, are not an appropriate solution.

In her opening remarks, Joveva warned that the title and the framework of the debate create a misleading impression, as if opponents of the proposed measures are defending child sexual abusers. In her opinion, the proposed measures, such as mass interference in private communications, do not mean effective protection of children, but rather set a dangerous precedent for general surveillance of the communications of all users.

She also highlighted the role of large technology companies, which already have large amounts of personal data at their disposal, and that additional powers to review private messages could further increase interference with individuals’ privacy and open up room for abuse, including the possibility of broader control over society:

“It means that privately sent pictures of our children in swimsuits will continue to be reviewed by Facebook staff. It means that intimate photos of couples may suddenly no longer be private. Above all, it means unimaginable possibilities for surveillance of people. A wet dream for repressive regimes.”

In conclusion, she concluded that measures to combat child sexual abuse online should be specifically targeted at perpetrators of criminal acts, rather than designed as a general surveillance of all internet users, and at the same time called for caution in political and public debates in which the argument of child protection is often used, as such calls may hide solutions that ultimately harm the rights of everyone – including children.

/0 Comments/by

Just because there are more women in positions of power doesn’t (necessarily) mean they are in a better position.

On Sunday, March 8, 2026, at the invitation of the Poliskop Center for Political Empowerment, MEP Irena Joveva participated in a discussion that took place before the performance of the play Three Sisters. The discussion offered reflection on the position of women in public space and on broader social issues through the prism of philosophy, art and culture. “The issue of women’s representation in politics does not in itself necessarily mean a better position for them. But at the same time, it is important that women occupy leading positions, because it is their presence that allows decisions to be shaped also from the perspective of the experiences, needs and interests of women in society.”

In the debate, Joveva pointed out that the European Parliament has recently reopened discussions on women’s rights, which should have been indisputable for a long time. It is increasingly obvious that some political actors are willing to question even rights that have been taken for granted for decades. According to her, such an attitude was also clearly demonstrated in the responses of some Slovenian MPs when considering the initiative for safe and accessible abortion.

She also touched on the issue of tension between the center and the periphery in Europe. As is known, she herself comes from Jesenice, from where Ljubljana was once perceived as the center of everything. Today, these differences are decreasing due to technology and greater mobility, but this does not mean that the feelings of distance from decision-making centers have completely disappeared, she explained. She also emphasized that a much bigger problem than the geographical difference itself is often how politics works. According to her, the key question is not only whether institutions work, but who they really serve:

“We adopt legislation in the European Union institutions with the aim of setting minimum standards for all people, not just for a privileged few. But a lot depends on those in the highest positions and on whether they are prepared to truly think about the most vulnerable when making decisions. This often includes people on the European periphery, who are often overlooked or left aside by political decisions.”

A special part of the discussion was also devoted to the issue of the position of women in existing social and political structures. For Joveva, many of these social structures were formed without the participation of women, so she agreed with the moderator’s assertion that it is entirely legitimate to consider whether they need to be changed and adapted to be more inclusive and better reflect the diversity of society.

“Politics is obviously doing something wrong if the world is spiraling into increasing chaos,” she stressed, citing some recent moves by US President Donald Trump as an example. She added that the issue of women’s representation in politics does not necessarily mean a better position for them:

“Have we ever wondered what would happen if a man were to head the European Commission, instead of Ursula von der Leyen, who is a woman but is still not the best president?”

📸 Darja Štravs Tisu

/0 Comments/by
,

Rare but no less serious liver diseases

On Tuesday, 24 February 2026, MEP Irena Joveva, in collaboration with the European Association of Liver Patients, hosted a consultation dedicated to the challenges of patients with rare liver diseases and the search for systemic solutions for faster diagnosis, better access to care and more coordinated treatment across the European Union. “Rare liver diseases are rare in themselves, but the experiences that sufferers have are unfortunately common to all. The long search for the right diagnosis, uncertainty and a feeling of loneliness in healthcare systems that are not adapted to rare conditions are unfortunately a harsh reality,” said Joveva.

Joveva began by explaining that while there is a lot of talk about rare diseases at the EU level, rare liver diseases are still too often overlooked. According to her, patients are often forced to become their own researchers and advocates, as this is the only way they can receive appropriate care.

“Behind these gaps lie real consequences for people’s lives. The progression of preventable diseases. Avoidable complications, the psychological burden on families and inequalities that depend solely on where in Europe someone lives.”

As she further explained, access to quality healthcare should not depend on where you live. No one, especially patients, should suffer a worse treatment outcome simply because professional care is geographically distant or concentrated elsewhere.

She emphasized that patients must be partners in shaping policies and systems that affect their lives. Their experiences clearly reveal where systems fail, from diagnostics to care coordination, psychological support, and navigation through complex healthcare pathways.

“Rare diseases are also a test of the fairness of our Union. They show whether our health systems work only for the majority or also for those whose conditions are complex, under-recognised and scattered across different countries.”

In conclusion, Joveva expressed her hope that similar discussions will raise awareness, improve collaboration, and ensure that patients with rare liver diseases also receive timely diagnosis, expert care, and lifelong support.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

Limits for tech giants, protection for children

MEP Irena Joveva hosted a consultation on child protection online at the European Parliament on Tuesday, 24 February 2026. The meeting, which brought together professionals, civil society and decision-makers, opened a dialogue on the challenges that social networks pose for young people. Limits must be set for tech giants – especially those who, despite being invited, did not come to the consultation, and in doing so, unfortunately, have said everything, said Joveva.

In her introduction, Joveva stressed that online child safety is crucial, as digital platforms are designed to encourage addiction and increase the time children spend on screens. Under the cloak of apparent engagement, addiction is actually being encouraged, she warned, highlighting the case of Meta, where internal documents years ago described Instagram as a “drug” designed to deliberately target teenagers and increase their screen time.

“What some call engagement is really addiction. Infinite scrolling is not a function – it’s a mechanism for another dopamine hit.”

The MP went on to highlight the need for restrictions that set boundaries for technology companies.

“In this context, instead of asking whether children are disciplined enough, let’s ask whether a product is safe enough. We need to set limits for merchants, not innocent users. Security by design is not a restriction on freedom, but a legal necessity for the normal functioning of society.”

She added that while Europe has already started to regulate with legislation, such as the ban on targeted advertising to minors under the Digital Services Act (DSA), in her opinion the implementation of these rules is still insufficient.

Algorithms are not neutral, Joveva made it clear, and tech giants focus exclusively on their own profits. Among the key topics, she highlighted the impact of digital platforms on children’s mental health, development and socialization.

“Imagine being in your developmental stage and being, say, 13 years old, discovering the world and becoming a subject in a philosophical sense, and at the same time getting access to everything online. Videos from war zones, access to violent pornography, the sexualization of your images using artificial intelligence, and the danger of your self-image becoming dependent on trolls or bullies, while at the same time being compared to famous actresses and models. Not to mention sexual abuse.”

With the development of artificial intelligence, platforms like TikTok, and other technological innovations, the situation has only worsened, she believes:

“The connection between social media and mental health, child development patterns, and behavior is very clear to anyone who is a parent or who sees through the manipulative narrative of how things really are.”

In conclusion, Joveva explained that she is working on a series of digital legislative files in the European Parliament from various perspectives. Her work focuses primarily on protecting users, their privacy, and limiting the power of the most powerful actors in relation to individuals. She hosted the consultation in collaboration with the Panoptykon Foundation and her colleague, MEP Kamila Pihowicz. Representatives of Meta, Google, and TikTok were also invited to the discussion, but none of them responded to the invitation.

/0 Comments/by
,

Ljubljana is my address, Brussels is my job, and Jesenice is my home

On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at the invitation of the Pensioners’ Association, MEP Irena Joveva participated in a discussion as part of meetings with Jesenice residents who have stepped out of the average in Kolpern. ”Ljubljana is my address, Brussels is my job, and Jesenice is my home,” the MEP emphasized, among other things.

Joveva began by emphasizing that her political and personal path is still most marked by Jesenice. A place that, despite living between Ljubljana and Brussels, she still considers her true home. As she said, it is the environment she comes from that is responsible for the fact that she has never gotten “altitude sickness”.

“It is important to remain true to yourself, to not forget where you come from, and above all, because of whom you are where you are. Jesenice is still the meeting point of everything that I am, and I do not intend to change that. It is a place where different cultures intertwine, which actually also reflects the fundamental idea of ​​the European Union, united in diversity. I like to say that I have lived this slogan since birth, just as all of you who are here today live it in your own way.”

When asked how much her journalism career shaped her for later political work, she explained that she began her journey as a student at the Slovenian Press Agency (STA), and then continued her work at POP TV in the 24h program. Eight years of journalism, she says, have given her invaluable experience in understanding the political system. As a journalist, she followed politics from the outside, but today she co-creates it from the inside, from the other side of the microphone.

“As a journalist, I quickly noticed that politicians often say a lot, but don’t answer the question. That’s why I always try to answer clearly and specifically. If I don’t know something, I admit it. I don’t think I’m the smartest person in the world, as some people like to believe about themselves, and there are many such people in politics. Well, my experience from my previous profession also helped me a lot with speeches in the plenary hall, which last about a minute. This is almost the same as a live journalistic broadcast, so from the beginning I knew how to choose the right words in a short time and clearly convey the essence.”

As she emphasized, she entered politics with the clear intention of showing that not all politicians are the same. According to her, it would be irresponsible to reject the opportunity for change and at the same time claim that nothing can be improved. Today, she participates in several committees of the European Parliament, including the Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) and the Employment Committee (EMPL), where she has a full membership, while in the Public Health Committee she acts as a substitute member and can participate in discussions. The MEP explained that the legislative procedure in the European Union resembles the national one in its basic structure, but the European one is somewhat more complex, as it is based on a balance between three institutions. The European Commission, which acts as an approximation to the national government, has the exclusive right of legislative initiative, which means that it prepares and proposes legislative acts. They are then decided on by the European Parliament, which represents the citizens, and the Council of the European Union, in which the member states are represented.

“Our legislative work begins in the relevant parliamentary committees, where MEPs prepare amendments, and political groups appoint negotiators for individual legislative proposals. In the previous mandate, I was also a negotiator on behalf of my political group in the preparation of European media legislation.”

She explained that after the positions of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU are formulated, negotiations begin in a so-called trilogue, where the three institutions coordinate different views and seek a compromise. She added that the European Parliament often advocates more ambitious solutions, with the final legislative act only adopted when all three institutions reach a common agreement.

As a member of the liberal political group, she also highlighted the importance of independent decision-making. “Although we receive guidance from our political group, at the end of the day I always vote according to my conscience,” she said, adding that she always consults with Slovenia’s permanent representation to the EU on issues of Slovenian national interests.

When asked about the events in Gaza and the European Union’s response, she stressed that the Union responded to the war in Ukraine with a rightful unity, while such unity is lacking when it comes to the response, especially of the European Commission and the member states, to the situation in Gaza. She pointed out the presence of double standards and added that although the number of MEPs in the European Parliament who are drawing attention to this is increasing, there is still not a sufficient political majority for more decisive action.

“Although there are more and more courageous, vocal and, for me, only realistic MEPs in Parliament, we still do not have the necessary majority to call genocide genocide and respond appropriately to a humanitarian catastrophe. It is no secret that in the EU Council, individual countries often make decisions primarily based on their particular interests. Such double standards also appear in other areas, for example in the enlargement of the Union, where the Western Balkans are treated differently from Ukraine.”

The discussion then turned to the Slovenian and pan-European initiative My Voice, My Choice, which aims for safe and accessible abortion everywhere in the European Union. She stressed that the initiative does not encourage a greater number of abortions, but strives to ensure that they are carried out in a safe manner. She also pointed out the large differences between member states, where women often have difficulty accessing healthcare due to legislative restrictions or conscientious objection.

In conclusion, she answered the question of how much MEPs can contribute to representing Slovenian interests with their positions. She explained that some do indeed actively support Slovenia’s interests, while others pursue completely different goals. She warned that often the loudest are those who publicly present themselves as the only defenders of Slovenian interests, even though their actions do not reflect this. As an example of manipulative action, she highlighted the debates on the situation of farmers, where, in her opinion, these strategies were particularly evident.

/0 Comments/by
,

Palestine – what now?

The first day of the mission: crossing Israel into Palestine. Given that everything had gone wrong even before departure and it seemed that we would not be able to carry out the mission (again), no one dared to predict what would happen at the airport in Tel Aviv.

Of course, many people hoped that we would not succeed. Many people also lobbied that we would not succeed. In the end, they did not succeed, but we did. I have to be honest and say that this was also due to the very direct support of the leadership of the European Parliament. In short, we had no problems at the border and the day after our arrival – in the last week of October 2025 – we began the official part of the three-day meetings and visits.

Already at the security briefing – in addition to the urgent instructions that we had to know just in case, from the possibility of an attack to the response if anything happened – we were warned not to fall for the impression of “normal” everyday life.

Because everything is far from normal…

At practically all meetings, our interlocutors warned us that the world is too quick to accept agreements that are just the tip of the iceberg. A patch, a virtual ceasefire, while humanitarian aid is still not enough, the attacks have not ended, and the number of innocents killed is still growing.

Although it certainly seems to many from the outside that everything is as “normal” as possible in the West Bank, in reality it is no better off. The violence there is less visible, but no less brutal. The latest report from the relevant United Nations office mentions 264 attacks by immigrants in just one month, an average of eight per day. Eight. Per day.

The only condition for normality – the way I can write it without quotes – is the end of occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide. And taking responsibility for all of the above. There is no alternative.

What is the point of the rules of international law if the rule of power (read: influence and money) prevails? Why do you even have some rules in the context of law if they are not respected, they asked me. And you know what hurts the most? That they are right. It is actually very simple. It is absolutely a problem when the rules are not respected. But an even bigger problem is when there is no responsibility for such disrespect.

No punishment.

A world that relaxes under the impression that everything is fine sends the wrong signal – that everything listed in the previous paragraph is fine. That no alternative is needed.

The European Union is present in Palestine, and is the largest donor, I would say. But on the ground it is becoming clear that no such aid can replace political responsibility. Above all, it must not become a substitute for justice, an excuse for inaction.

The number of illegal settlers in the West Bank is increasing. There are hundreds of thousands of them, according to official figures, almost half a million, and I’m not even counting East Jerusalem (there are an additional 200,000 there).

Not only can all these immigrants march through the streets with weapons without any problem – everything they do, they do with the knowledge and (in)direct support of the military and the authorities. Soldiers, ex-soldiers, civilians, everything is intertwined, uniform is no criterion.

I am not the biggest fan of generalizations. You will never hear me say that an entire nation is evil. Or vice versa. But the fact is that in this case, an entire nation lives in fear, while the cheaper life through illegal settlements attracts another nation, which apparently does not even think about the legal, let alone the moral, consequences.

These are not empty words.

Palestinian society is facing an existential threat, we have heard this from both representatives of the Palestinian Authority and from all NGOs – including Israeli ones. Tens of thousands of children have been killed, tens of thousands of children have various health problems, tens of thousands of children are orphans.

The feeling of injustice has touched almost every conversation. Palestine is being decided without Palestine. The international system maintains a state in which Palestine is forever waiting. For permission, for help, for justice. With all due respect and reverence for historical events, but the international system also maintains a state of eternal victims – and no, in this case I am not talking about Palestinian women and men.

“Because they can. Why can they?”

The second day of the mission was dedicated to civil society and local organizations in East Jerusalem – Palestine.

Everyone pointed out that the situation is far from good. That both the Israeli authorities and Hamas are deliberately dividing Palestine, specifically Gaza and the West Bank. That humanitarian workers are exhausted.

Can you imagine living your whole life right by the sea and never trying fish? Not because you don’t want to, but because you’re not allowed to. Can you imagine?

Can you imagine having olive groves, and in the middle of the peak season, someone simply steals your fruits – which you, of course, picked, worked hard for – because they can?

What about if someone breaks into your house and asks you if you’re scared right now? And tells you that he’s going to cut off your head, yours, your children’s heads, if you don’t leave? Can you imagine?

Just like that. Because he can.

Don’t ask yourself why!

I spoke to young activists, as well as journalists. They all emphasized a sense of numbness and a loss of meaning. Even a sense of guilt for living.

“Does Gaza really have to bleed to make its to the news?” How should one answer such a question? Or to the statement that they are not asking for charity, but for HUMAN rights?

You tell them they are right. Because they are. And then? You agree that the European Union is a prisoner of some of its own political mechanisms and consensuses, not to mention internal politics and some historical feelings of guilt (which are unjustly associated with the present, by the way). Does the EU’s voice carry weight? It could. Where is the “because it can” here?

Can you imagine the Palestinian people (read: I’m not talking about terrorists) thinking that they can? That they can avenge the deaths of tens of thousands of babies, children? Women, mothers? Men, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles… PEOPLE.

People with a future. So can you imagine someone living there and watching all this, surviving through some lucky combination of circumstances, having nothing (anymore) to lose, and thinking: if the rule of law doesn’t apply, if there’s no accountability and punishment, then… can I?

When I grow up, I will be …

The two fields on the last day hurt me the most. First, the one that was the most full of good will, laughter, eyes in which you see not only a spark of hope, but sincere happiness when thinking about the future.

When I grow up, I will be a doctor! – Why? – Because I want to save the world.

When I grow up, I will be a lawyer! – Why? – Because I want to save my brother.

When I grow up, I will be an engineer! – Why? – Because I want to do good.

Did you notice the “because I can”? Me neither. While visiting a school in one of the refugee camps in the West Bank, I felt really bad. When you look at these children, at least in my case as the mother of a little girl, you think: what the hell?!

To avoid any misunderstanding, this isn’t really about whether you have children or not, because I honestly think something like that would be unbearable for anyone. A human, of course.

The field visit to Palestine revealed a reality that goes beyond official statements, peace agreements, discussions, speeches…

And yet, at the end of the mission what was even more painful, was the field of visits by adults who were left without everything, with a look in their eyes in which you only see …

And what now?

The main battle today is not Gaza. The main battlefield is the West Bank, where daily life is reduced to a master-slave relationship. People are wondering whether to stay or flee, but many are persevering.

Why, you ask? So did I. Because they have nothing else left. Like hope, like a voice, like a language. And even threats of literally cutting off their heads don’t silence them.

 

What we have been witnessing in the Middle East in recent weeks and beyond is classic political theater. Israel creates the appearance of action, while world leaders act not for moral reasons, but purely out of political calculations.

Sometimes you have to see for yourself to truly understand what it means to live in fear that never goes away. At the end of the day – or mission – you are left with the feeling that everyone who lives there exists in a state between survival and hope. Hope, that must not end.

But, dear readers, this is not just about Palestine. It is about humanity. It is about basic values ​​that NO ONE should ignore. Everything that has happened in the last two years cannot be simply erased. Pretending that nothing happened and was happening. That nothing is happening. The genocide has not ended. It is just slower and quieter. Even worse, in fact.

And the greatest irony? It is that Palestinians would not need foreign aid at all if they were simply allowed to live. And it is that foreign aid – pressure – is actually what the state of Israel needs.

The European Union has the tools; we have seen how we know how to use them, or are using them, against Russia. The fact that we don’t have them here is not a lack of understanding. It is hypocrisy.

And that’s why I’m going to have serious discussions in my political group next week as we decide on the next steps. I won’t give up, because there should NEVER be any excuses for not taking responsibility. It’s time for us to take ours – morally, politically and humanly.

/0 Comments/by

“It is high time to prove that it is not all just words on paper”

On Friday, 7 November 2025, MEP Irena Joveva took part in a debate on the enlargement of the European Union in the House of the European Union. At the publication of the European Commission’s annual report on the progress of candidate countries, she clearly expressed her position on the attitude of European policy towards candidate countries for membership in the European Union: “Candidate countries must do their homework and most of them are doing it – some faster, some slower, but the EU itself must do it first and foremost.” According to her, it is high time to prove that it is not all just words on paper.

In her introduction, the MEP welcomed the fact that such an extremely important topic is finally, after so many years, high on the agenda:

“It is right that candidate countries, when they make progress, start accession negotiations without any internal political or bilateral resolutions and become part of the European family.”

Regarding the situation in Serbia, she said that there has been no progress in recent years due to the regime there. As she said, the European Parliament has often saved the honor of the European Union, especially in the last year, specifically in terms of condemnation and very clear positions on the regime, but also support for European values ​​and, consequently, those who fight for these values; which are currently students or people on the streets of Serbia.

Questions were also directed at North Macedonia, with the MEP pointing out that the Macedonian state deserves a little more positive messages, because becoming a ‘hostage’ to the Bulgarian narrative is not fair in itself, but at the same time, this is clearly the only reason for its lack of progress.

She went on to support the status of candidates, including Ukraine and Moldova, especially in the context of the current geopolitical situation.

She expressed her belief that economic interests should never be a priority over people’s interests, and concluded by stating that criteria and rules exist for a reason, but in the end, regardless of this, everything stands or falls on credibility and integrity:

“Not only individuals, but also – or above all – institutions. If an institution promises the same thing over and over again and fails to deliver, then a serious problem arises and we can understand the disappointment and anger of the person on the other side. The candidates have to do their homework and most of them are doing it – some faster, some slower, but first and foremost the European Union itself has to do it.”

In addition to MEP Irena Joveva, the debate was also attended by MEPs Vladimir Prebilič (Greens/EFA), Matjaž Nemec (S&D), Matej Tonin (EPP), Marjan Šarec (Renew) and Branko Grims (EPP), Faris Kočan from the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana and Adnan Ćerimagić from the European Stability Initiative.

/0 Comments/by