🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of violence, the ceasefire, hostage releases, limited IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Troubling Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the war in Gaza, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing political gridlock. But worse than passivity is the accusation of collusion in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have refused to apply leverage on those responsible while maintaining commercial, 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. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, addressing youth demands. These very young people are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a conflict that numerous observers call a atrocity for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, neither step have been implemented. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. The second could pass with a supermajority, but key countries' objections have made it meaningless.

Contrasting Approaches and Lost Trust

This summer, the EU found that Israel had breached its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat paused efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the eyes of the world.

The US Initiative as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an escape route. It has enabled EU nations to embrace US requirements, like their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of stability in the Middle East, shifting attention from punitive measures toward European support for the American initiative.

The EU has withdrawn into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are expected to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

All this is understandable. The US initiative is the only available proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, even if limited, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore both practical for Europeans, it is logical too.

However, executing the initiative after its first phase is easier said than done. Numerous obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

Future Prospects and Necessary Steps

The plan aims to transition toward local administration, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" governing body. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the US, Europeans, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a independent Palestine.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it came into effect, dozens of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Without the global community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that widespread conflict will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In summary, the remaining points of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

This is why European leaders are mistaken to consider support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or contradictory. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and conditionality.

Pressure applied to Israel is the sole method to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can finally make a small – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.