🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has provoked a collective feeling of reassurance among EU officials. Following 24 months of violence, the truce, hostage exchanges, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access offer hope – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for European nations to persist with passivity.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza Conflict

When it comes to the war in Gaza, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, leading to political gridlock. More alarming than inaction is the accusation of collusion in violations of international law. European institutions have been unwilling to exert pressure on those responsible while continuing commercial, political, and military partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet European leaders have become disconnected with their constituents, especially younger generations. In 2020, the EU championed the climate agenda, addressing young people's concerns. These very young people are now shocked by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Ineffective Measures

Only after 24 months of a conflict that numerous observers call a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to recognise the State of Palestine, following Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from the previous year.

Only recently did the European Commission propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. However, both measures have been implemented. The first requires unanimous agreement among all member states – unlikely given fierce resistance from nations including Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Trust

In June, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. But recently, the EU's foreign policy chief paused efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of Russian sanctions could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for democracy 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 provided Europe with an way out. It has allowed European governments to support Washington's demands, like their stance on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to trumpet a fresh beginning of peace in the Middle East, shifting attention from punitive measures toward backing for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are lining up to participate with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of pressure on Israel has virtually disappeared.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

All this is understandable. Trump's plan is the only available framework and undoubtedly the single approach with some possibility, even if limited, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the US 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, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Multiple obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Required Action

The plan aims to move toward local administration, first involving Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" governing body. But administrative reform means radically different things to the Americans, Europe, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the truce: since it came into effect, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by IDF operations, while others have been shot by Hamas.

Without the international community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In summary, the outstanding elements of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

This is why European leaders are mistaken to view backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the latter to one of continuing war. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to discard the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and requirements.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a modest – but positive, at least – contribution to peace in the region.