🔗 Share this article

The first stage of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has elicited a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of bloodshed, the ceasefire, hostage releases, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery offer hope – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments 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. European institutions have refused to apply leverage on the perpetrators while maintaining commercial, diplomatic, and military partnership.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among European citizens, yet European leaders have become disconnected with their own people, especially youth. In 2020, the EU championed the climate agenda, addressing youth demands. Those same young people are now shocked by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Ineffective Measures

Only after 24 months of a conflict that many consider a genocide for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, after other European nations' lead from last year.

Only recently did the European Commission propose the first timid punitive measures 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 strong opposition from countries like Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Lost Credibility

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The difference with the EU's multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and global norms; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Convenient Excuse

Now, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an way out. It has enabled European governments to embrace Washington's demands, similar to their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to promote a new dawn of peace in the Middle East, shifting attention from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

Europe has withdrawn into its comfort zone of playing second fiddle to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with aid, rebuilding, governance support, and frontier supervision. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

All this is understandable. The US initiative is the sole existing proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, however small, of achievement. This is not because to the inherent merit of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the US is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for Europeans, it is logical too.

However, executing the plan beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Required Action

This initiative aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, first involving local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the US, Europe, Arab countries, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in repeating its consistent objective – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it began, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been killed by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Without the global community, and especially the US and Europe, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In summary, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are wrong to consider support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but factually wrong to see the first as part of 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 abandon the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and requirements.

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