🔗 Share this article

The first stage of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the truce, captive exchanges, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery offer hope – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for Europe to persist with passivity.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza Conflict

When it comes to the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have revealed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing policy paralysis. But worse than inaction is the charge of collusion in violations of international law. European institutions have refused to exert pressure on those responsible while maintaining commercial, diplomatic, and defense partnership.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, particularly youth. Just five years ago, the EU championed the environmental movement, responding to young people's concerns. These very young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Weak Measures

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

Only recently 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, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among all member states – unlikely given fierce resistance from nations including Hungary and the Czech Republic. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Trust

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Now, the American proposal has offered Europe with an escape route. It has allowed European governments to support Washington's demands, similar to their stance on the Ukrainian conflict, defense, and commerce. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of stability in the Middle East, redirecting focus from punitive measures toward backing for the American initiative.

The EU has retreated into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role 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. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the sole existing framework and certainly the only plan with some possibility, however small, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for European leaders, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Numerous hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

Future Prospects and Required Action

This initiative aims to transition toward local administration, initially featuring local experts and then a "restructured" governing body. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the US, Europe, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, numerous of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while others have been shot by militant groups.

Unless the global community, and especially the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that widespread conflict will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the remaining points of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are mistaken to consider backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but factually wrong to view the former as belonging to the peace process and the latter to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the time for the EU and its constituent countries to avoid responsibility, or to discard the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and conditionality.

Pressure applied to Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.