🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has provoked a collective sense of relief among EU officials. After two years of violence, the ceasefire, captive exchanges, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, create an excuse for Europe to persist with passivity.

Europe's Troubling Stance on the Gaza War

When it comes to the Gaza conflict, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing policy paralysis. More alarming than passivity is the charge of collusion in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have refused to exert pressure on those responsible while continuing commercial, diplomatic, and defense partnership.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among European citizens, yet European leaders have lost touch with their own people, particularly younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing youth demands. Those same youth are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for multiple EU countries including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, following Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, both measures have been implemented. The initial requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – unlikely given fierce resistance from nations including Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Responses and Lost Credibility

In June, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, 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 freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its credibility in the eyes of the world.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an way out. It has allowed EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, like their approach on Ukraine, security, and trade. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of stability in the region, redirecting focus from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are preparing to contribute with aid, reconstruction, governance support, and border monitoring. Discussion of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the only available framework and certainly the only plan with some possibility, however small, of achievement. This is not because to the inherent merit of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the US is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, implementing the initiative after its first phase is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is improbable 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 transition toward Palestinian self-government, first involving Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" governing body. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the concept of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in restating its consistent objective – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, numerous of non-combatants have been killed by Israeli forces, while others have been shot by Hamas.

Unless the global community, and especially the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that widespread conflict will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In short, the remaining points of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

Therefore Europeans are wrong to consider backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but practically incorrect to view the former as part of the paradigm of peace 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 abandon the first timid moves toward sanctions and conditionality.

Pressure exerted on Israel is the only way to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can ultimately make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the region.