🔗 Share this article

The first phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has provoked a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of bloodshed, the truce, hostage releases, partial IDF pullback, and humanitarian access offer hope – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for European nations to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing policy paralysis. More alarming than passivity is the charge of collusion in violations of international law. EU bodies have been unwilling to apply leverage on the perpetrators while continuing economic, diplomatic, and defense cooperation.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, particularly youth. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, addressing youth demands. Those same young people are now appalled by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Delayed Acknowledgement and Ineffective Actions

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, after other European nations' lead from the previous year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus halting EU trade preferences. However, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – improbable given strong opposition from countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. The other could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Contrasting Responses and Lost Trust

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's foreign policy chief paused efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of Russian sanctions 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 Escape Route

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an escape route. It has allowed EU nations to support US requirements, like their stance on Ukraine, defense, and trade. It has permitted them to trumpet a new dawn of stability in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

Europe 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 international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. The US initiative 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 rather because the US is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it makes sense too.

However, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is improbable to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. 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 local experts and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the US, Europeans, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in restating its consistent objective – the destruction 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 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Without the international community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will continue being occupied. In short, the outstanding elements of the plan will not see the light of day.

Conclusion

This is why Europeans are mistaken to view support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is expedient but factually wrong to view the first as belonging to the peace process and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the time for the EU and its constituent countries to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the first timid moves toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Leverage applied to Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can finally make a modest – but positive, at least – contribution to peace in the region.