🔗 Share this article

The first stage of Donald Trump's Middle East plan has provoked a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the truce, hostage exchanges, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access offer hope – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for European nations to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, causing political gridlock. But worse than passivity is the charge of collusion in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have been unwilling to apply leverage on those responsible while continuing commercial, diplomatic, and military cooperation.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among European citizens, yet EU governments have become disconnected with their constituents, particularly youth. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. Those same youth are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Weak Measures

Only after 24 months of a conflict that many consider a genocide for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to recognise the Palestinian state, after other European nations' example from the previous year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, both measures have been implemented. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – improbable given strong opposition from nations including Hungary and the Czech Republic. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Approaches and Damaged Credibility

In June, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. But recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. 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 global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the eyes of the world.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an way out. It has allowed EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, like their approach on Ukraine, security, and trade. It has permitted them to promote a fresh beginning of peace in the Middle East, redirecting focus from sanctions toward backing for the US plan.

The EU has withdrawn into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Talk of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

This situation is comprehensible. The US initiative is the sole existing proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, even if limited, of achievement. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the US is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for European leaders, it is logical too.

However, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Required Action

The plan aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the US, Europe, Arab countries, and the local population. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by IDF operations, while others have been shot by Hamas.

Without the international community, and particularly the US and Europe, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the remaining points of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

This is why European leaders are wrong to consider backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the latter 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 discard the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Leverage applied to Israel is the only way to overcome diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can finally make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.