🔗 Share this article

The initial stage of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of violence, the truce, hostage releases, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Troubling Position on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, leading to political gridlock. But worse than inaction is the charge of complicity in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have been unwilling to apply leverage on the perpetrators while continuing commercial, political, and military cooperation.

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

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Measures

Only after 24 months of a conflict that numerous observers call a genocide for multiple EU countries including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the State of Palestine, following other European nations' example from last year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus halting EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, both measures have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – improbable given strong opposition from nations including Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Lost Trust

In June, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to suspend 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 damaged its reputation in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an escape route. It has allowed EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, similar to their stance on the Ukrainian conflict, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to promote a new dawn of peace in the region, redirecting focus from sanctions toward European support 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 international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are preparing to participate with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, governance support, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is understandable. The US initiative is the sole existing proposal and undoubtedly the single approach with any chance, however small, of achievement. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the United States is the only player with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for European leaders, it makes sense too.

However, implementing the initiative after its first phase is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous obstacles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

Future Prospects and Required Action

This initiative aims to transition toward local administration, first involving local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means radically different things to the Americans, Europe, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in repeating its consistent objective – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, dozens of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Without the international community, and particularly the US and Europe, apply more leverage 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 mistaken to view support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but factually wrong to view the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the latter to one of continuing war. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to discard the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a small – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.