🔗 Share this article

The initial stage of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has provoked a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. Following 24 months of violence, the ceasefire, captive exchanges, partial IDF pullback, and aid delivery offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for European nations to persist with passivity.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the Gaza conflict, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, leading to policy paralysis. But worse than passivity is the accusation of complicity in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have been unwilling to exert pressure on the perpetrators while continuing commercial, diplomatic, and military cooperation.

Israel's violations have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet EU governments have become disconnected with their own people, especially younger generations. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. Those same youth are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Ineffective Measures

Only after 24 months of a war that many consider a genocide for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. Nevertheless, both measures have been implemented. The first requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – unlikely given fierce resistance from countries like Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Credibility

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to suspend the agreement's trade privileges. The contrast with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an way out. It has enabled EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, similar to their approach on Ukraine, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of peace in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward European support for the American initiative.

The EU has withdrawn into its comfort zone of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are preparing to participate with aid, rebuilding, governance support, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

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

Nevertheless, executing the plan after its first phase is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is improbable to fully pull out 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, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" governing body. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europe, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the truce: since it came into effect, numerous of non-combatants have been killed by IDF operations, while others have been shot by militant groups.

Unless the international community, and especially the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will continue being occupied. In summary, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore Europeans are mistaken to view support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the first as part of the peace process and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and requirements.

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