🔗 Share this article

The first phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has provoked a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of bloodshed, the ceasefire, captive exchanges, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access provide optimism – and unfortunately, create an excuse for European nations to persist with passivity.

The EU's Troubling Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their poorest performance. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. But worse than inaction is the accusation of collusion in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have been unwilling to exert pressure on the perpetrators while maintaining economic, political, and military partnership.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their constituents, especially youth. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing youth demands. Those same young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Acknowledgement and Weak Measures

It took two years of a conflict that numerous observers call a atrocity for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from last year.

Just last month did the EU executive propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, both measures have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – unlikely given strong opposition from nations including Hungary and the Czech Republic. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Credibility

In June, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement. But recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The contrast with the EU's multiple rounds of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for democracy and global norms; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the eyes of the world.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Now, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an way out. It has enabled EU nations to embrace US requirements, similar to their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of stability in the region, shifting attention from punitive measures toward backing for the US plan.

Europe has withdrawn into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are expected to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, governance support, and border monitoring. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. The US initiative is the sole existing proposal and undoubtedly the single approach with any chance, even if limited, of achievement. This is not due to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the US is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan after its first phase is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

Future Prospects and Required Action

This initiative aims to move toward local administration, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the US, Europeans, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

The Israeli government has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it came into effect, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Without the global community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore Europeans are wrong to consider support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to avoid responsibility, or to discard the first timid moves toward sanctions and conditionality.

Pressure exerted on Israel is the only way to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a small – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.