🔗 Share this article

The first phase of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has provoked a collective sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the truce, hostage exchanges, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for European nations to persist with passivity.

Europe's Troubling Position on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing political gridlock. But worse than passivity is the accusation of complicity in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have been unwilling to apply leverage on those responsible while maintaining economic, diplomatic, and defense partnership.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, particularly younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing young people's concerns. Those same young people are now appalled by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Actions

Only after 24 months of a war that numerous observers call a atrocity for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the Palestinian state, following other European nations' example from the previous year.

Only recently did the European Commission propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, neither step have been enacted. The first requires complete consensus among all member states – improbable given strong opposition 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 Lost Trust

In June, the EU found that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat paused 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 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, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an escape route. It has enabled European governments to support Washington's demands, like their stance on the Ukrainian conflict, 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 playing second fiddle to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and frontier supervision. Talk of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. The US initiative is the sole existing framework and undoubtedly the only plan with any chance, even if limited, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for European leaders, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

This initiative aims to transition toward local administration, initially featuring local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means radically different things to the Americans, Europeans, 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 brutally clear in repeating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an end to the war. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it came into effect, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces, while others have been shot by Hamas.

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

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are wrong to view backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to see the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the first timid moves toward sanctions and requirements.

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