🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has provoked a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of bloodshed, the truce, captive releases, limited Israeli military withdrawal, 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 Gaza conflict, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, causing political gridlock. More alarming than passivity is the charge of complicity in violations of international law. EU bodies have been unwilling to exert pressure on the perpetrators while maintaining commercial, diplomatic, and military cooperation.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, particularly youth. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, addressing young people's concerns. These very young people are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Acknowledgement and Weak Measures

It took two years of a war that many consider a atrocity for multiple EU countries including France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after other European nations' lead from last year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus halting European trade benefits. Nevertheless, neither step have been implemented. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – unlikely given fierce resistance from countries like Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Responses and Lost Trust

In June, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of Russian sanctions could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its credibility in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Currently, 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 the Ukrainian conflict, defense, and trade. It has enabled 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 withdrawn into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are expected to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the sole existing proposal and certainly the single approach with any chance, even if limited, of achievement. This is not due to the inherent merit of the plan, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple obstacles 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

This initiative aims to transition toward local administration, first involving Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" governing body. But reformed authority means radically different things to the US, Europe, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it began, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while others have been injured by Hamas.

Unless the international community, and especially the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will continue being occupied. In summary, the remaining points of the plan will not see the light of day.

Conclusion

Therefore European leaders are wrong to consider support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the former as part of the peace process 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 discard the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and conditionality.

Pressure applied to Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a modest – but positive, at least – contribution to peace in the region.