🔗 Share this article

The initial stage of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has provoked a collective feeling of reassurance among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, captive exchanges, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access provide optimism – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for European nations to persist with passivity.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing political gridlock. More alarming than passivity is the accusation of complicity in violations of international law. European institutions have been unwilling to exert pressure on the perpetrators while continuing commercial, political, and military cooperation.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet European leaders have lost touch with their constituents, especially younger generations. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing young people's concerns. Those same young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Weak Actions

Only after 24 months of a conflict that many consider a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from the previous year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – unlikely given fierce resistance from countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. The second could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Credibility

In June, the EU found that Israel had breached 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 19 packages of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Now, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an escape route. It has allowed European governments to support Washington's demands, like their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, defense, and trade. It has enabled them to promote a new dawn of stability in the region, shifting attention from punitive measures toward European support for the American initiative.

The EU has withdrawn into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Talk of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

All this is understandable. Trump's plan is the sole existing framework and certainly the only plan with some possibility, even if limited, of achievement. This is not because to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the US is the only player with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for European leaders, it is logical too.

However, executing the plan beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Numerous obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is improbable to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel withdraws.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

This initiative aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring local experts and then a "reformed" governing body. But administrative reform means radically different things to the Americans, Europe, 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 unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an end to the war. It has not completely adhered to the truce: since it came into effect, numerous of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Without the global community, and especially the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will continue being occupied. In summary, the remaining points of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

This is why Europeans are wrong to consider backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to view 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 abandon the first timid moves toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.