🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of Donald Trump's Middle East plan has elicited a widespread feeling of reassurance among EU officials. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, captive releases, limited IDF pullback, and humanitarian access offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for European nations to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza Conflict

When it comes to the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their poorest performance. 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 apply leverage on the perpetrators while maintaining commercial, diplomatic, and defense cooperation.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet European leaders have become disconnected with their constituents, particularly younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, addressing young people's concerns. Those same young people are now shocked by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a conflict that numerous observers call a atrocity for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the Palestinian state, after other European nations' lead from the previous year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, both measures have been implemented. The initial requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Responses and Lost Credibility

In June, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat paused efforts to suspend the agreement's trade privileges. The contrast with the EU's 19 packages of Russian sanctions could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for democracy and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Currently, the American proposal has offered Europe with an escape route. It has enabled EU nations to embrace US requirements, like their approach on Ukraine, defense, and trade. It has enabled them to promote a new dawn of peace in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

The EU has withdrawn into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

This situation is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the sole existing framework and undoubtedly the single approach with any chance, however small, of achievement. This is not due to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the United States is the only player with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore both practical for Europeans, it makes sense too.

However, implementing the plan after its first phase is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

This initiative aims to move toward Palestinian self-government, first involving Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means radically different things to the US, Europe, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has been brutally clear in repeating its consistent objective – the elimination of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it came into effect, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces, while others have been injured by Hamas.

Unless the international community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, 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 view support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or contradictory. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the first as belonging to the peace process and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the time for the EU and its constituent countries to feel let off the hook, or to discard the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and requirements.

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