🔗 Share this article

The first stage of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of violence, the truce, captive releases, partial IDF pullback, and humanitarian access offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for European nations to continue inaction.

The EU's Problematic Stance on the Gaza Conflict

When it comes to the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. More alarming than inaction is the charge of complicity in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have refused to apply leverage on those responsible while maintaining commercial, political, and defense partnership.

Israel's violations have sparked widespread anger among European citizens, yet EU governments have lost touch with their constituents, particularly younger generations. In 2020, the EU championed the environmental movement, addressing young people's concerns. These very youth are now appalled by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Weak Measures

It took two years of a war that numerous observers call a atrocity for multiple EU countries including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. However, both measures have been implemented. The first requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Approaches and Damaged Trust

This summer, the EU found that Israel had breached its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. But recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The contrast with the EU's 19 packages of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its credibility in the eyes of the world.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Now, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an escape route. It has enabled European governments to support US requirements, similar to their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to trumpet a new dawn of peace in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward backing for the American initiative.

Europe has withdrawn into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and border monitoring. Talk of pressure on Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

All this is understandable. Trump's plan is the sole existing proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, however small, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the US is the only player with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for European leaders, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is improbable to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Necessary Steps

This initiative aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, first involving local experts and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means radically different things to the US, Europeans, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in restating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it came into effect, numerous of non-combatants have been killed by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by Hamas.

Without the international community, and particularly the US and Europe, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that widespread conflict will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In summary, the remaining points of the initiative will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

Therefore Europeans are mistaken to view backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as separate or opposing. It is expedient but practically incorrect to see the first as part of the paradigm of peace and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries to feel let off the hook, or to discard the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.