🔗 Share this article

The initial stage of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a widespread sense of relief among EU officials. After two years of violence, the ceasefire, hostage releases, partial IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, create an excuse for Europe to persist with passivity.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza War

When it comes to the war in Gaza, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, causing political gridlock. More alarming than inaction is the charge of complicity in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have been unwilling to exert pressure on the perpetrators while maintaining economic, political, and military cooperation.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, especially younger generations. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, responding to youth demands. Those same young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Actions

Only after 24 months of a war that numerous observers call a genocide for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the Palestinian state, after other European nations' example from last year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. Nevertheless, both measures have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among all member states – unlikely given fierce resistance from nations including Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Approaches and Damaged Credibility

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 suspend the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its credibility in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an way out. It has enabled European governments to support US requirements, similar to their stance on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and trade. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of peace in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward backing for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are preparing to participate with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the only available proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, however small, of success. This is not due to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the US is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

However, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous hurdles 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 departs.

Future Prospects and Necessary Steps

The plan aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring local experts and then a "reformed" governing body. But administrative reform means radically different things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the ceasefire: since it came into effect, dozens of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the global 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 Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are wrong to view backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but practically incorrect to view the former as part of the peace process and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Pressure applied to Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a small – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.