🔗 Share this article

The first stage of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective sense of relief among EU officials. After two years of violence, the truce, hostage exchanges, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access provide optimism – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for European nations to persist with passivity.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza War

When it comes to the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, leading to policy paralysis. But worse than inaction is the accusation of collusion in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have been unwilling to apply leverage on the perpetrators while maintaining commercial, political, and military partnership.

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

Delayed Acknowledgement and Ineffective Measures

Only after 24 months of a war that many consider a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after other European nations' example from the previous year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and violent settlers, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, both measures have been implemented. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – improbable given strong opposition from nations including Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Approaches and Damaged Trust

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted 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 shattered its reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an way out. It has allowed European governments to support US requirements, like their approach on Ukraine, defense, and trade. It has permitted them to trumpet a fresh beginning of peace in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are preparing to participate with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and frontier supervision. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. The US initiative is the sole existing framework and undoubtedly the only plan with any chance, however small, of achievement. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the US is the only player with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, executing the plan beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous obstacles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

The plan aims to move toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europe, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the truce: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the international community, and especially the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are wrong to view support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but factually wrong to see the former as belonging to the peace process and the latter to one of continuing war. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to avoid responsibility, or to discard the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and requirements.

Pressure exerted on Israel is the only way to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can finally make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.