🔗 Share this article

The first phase of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of violence, the truce, captive releases, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery provide optimism – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza War

When it comes to the war in Gaza, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. More alarming than inaction is the accusation of collusion in violations of international law. EU bodies have been unwilling to apply leverage on those responsible while maintaining economic, political, and military partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet EU governments have become disconnected with their own people, especially youth. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. These very young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Actions

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from last year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus suspending European trade benefits. Nevertheless, both measures have been enacted. The first requires unanimous agreement among all member states – improbable given strong opposition from countries like Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a supermajority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Trust

This summer, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief paused efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The contrast with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its credibility in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Now, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an escape route. It has enabled EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, similar to their approach on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of stability in the region, redirecting focus from punitive measures toward European support for the American initiative.

Europe has withdrawn into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are lining up to participate with aid, reconstruction, administrative help, and border monitoring. Talk of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

All this is understandable. The US initiative is the sole existing proposal and undoubtedly the only plan with some possibility, however small, of success. This is not because to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the United States is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore both practical for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the initiative beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

The plan aims to move toward local administration, first involving local experts and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means radically different things to the US, Europeans, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in repeating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it came into effect, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces, while others have been shot by Hamas.

Without the international community, and especially the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that widespread conflict will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore Europeans are mistaken to consider backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to view the former as part of the paradigm of peace and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.