🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, hostage releases, limited IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – yet regrettably, create an excuse for European nations to persist with passivity.

Europe's Troubling Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the Gaza conflict, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their poorest performance. Deep divisions exist, leading to policy paralysis. But worse than inaction is the charge of collusion in violations of international law. EU bodies have refused to exert pressure on the perpetrators while continuing economic, political, and defense cooperation.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet European leaders have lost touch with their constituents, especially youth. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing youth demands. These very youth are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Acknowledgement and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a war that many consider a atrocity for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to recognise the State of Palestine, following Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. However, both measures have been implemented. The first requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – improbable given strong opposition from countries like Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Contrasting Approaches and Lost Credibility

In June, the EU determined that Israel had breached 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 multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the eyes of the world.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an escape route. It has allowed EU nations to support Washington's demands, like their approach on Ukraine, security, and trade. It has enabled them to trumpet a new dawn of peace in the region, shifting attention from punitive measures toward European support for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and border monitoring. Talk of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. The US initiative is the only available proposal and certainly the only plan with some possibility, however small, of achievement. This is not because to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the US is the only player with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

However, implementing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple obstacles 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 local experts and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means radically different things to the US, Europeans, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in restating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded addressing an end to the war. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it came into effect, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Without the international community, and especially the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will continue being occupied. In short, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

This is why European leaders are mistaken to view support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is expedient but practically incorrect to see the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and conditionality.

Leverage applied to Israel is the sole method to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.