🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has provoked a collective sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, hostage exchanges, limited IDF pullback, and aid delivery offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for European nations to persist with passivity.

The EU's Problematic Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their poorest performance. They are divided, leading to policy paralysis. More alarming than passivity is the accusation of complicity in violations of international law. European institutions have refused to exert pressure on those responsible while continuing commercial, political, and defense cooperation.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their constituents, particularly younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU championed the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. Those same young people are now appalled by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Delayed Acknowledgement and Ineffective Actions

It took two years of a war that many consider a genocide for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to recognise the Palestinian state, following Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from last year.

Only recently did the European Commission propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus halting EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, both measures have been enacted. The initial requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – unlikely given strong opposition from countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. The second could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Approaches and Damaged Credibility

This summer, the EU found that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's top diplomat paused efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Convenient Excuse

Now, the American proposal has provided Europe with an escape route. It has allowed European governments to support Washington's demands, similar to their stance on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to trumpet a new dawn of peace in the region, redirecting focus from sanctions toward backing for the American initiative.

Europe has retreated into its comfort zone of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, governance support, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the only available proposal and undoubtedly the single approach with any chance, even if limited, of success. This is not due to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for Europeans, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is improbable 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 local administration, first involving Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" governing body. But reformed authority means radically different things to the US, Europe, Arab countries, and the local population. 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 studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while others have been injured by Hamas.

Unless the international community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the remaining points of the plan will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

Therefore Europeans are wrong to consider backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the former as part of the paradigm of peace and the latter to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the first timid moves toward punitive measures and requirements.

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