🔗 Share this article

The first phase of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has provoked a collective feeling of reassurance among EU officials. After two years of violence, the ceasefire, captive exchanges, limited IDF pullback, and humanitarian access offer hope – yet regrettably, create an excuse for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their poorest performance. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. But worse than inaction is the accusation of collusion in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have been unwilling to exert pressure on those responsible while continuing economic, political, and military cooperation.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet European leaders have lost touch with their constituents, especially younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing young people's concerns. These very young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Acknowledgement and Ineffective Measures

Only after 24 months of a conflict that many consider a atrocity for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from the previous year.

Only recently did the European Commission propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus halting European trade benefits. However, both measures have been implemented. The first requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – unlikely given strong opposition from nations including Hungary and the Czech Republic. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have made it meaningless.

Divergent Approaches and Damaged Credibility

This summer, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its credibility in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Convenient Excuse

Now, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an way out. It has enabled EU nations to support Washington's demands, similar to their approach on Ukraine, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to promote a new dawn of stability in the Middle East, redirecting focus from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

Europe has withdrawn into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and frontier supervision. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

All this 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 proposal, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore both practical for Europeans, it makes sense too.

However, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

Future Prospects and Required Action

The plan aims to transition toward local administration, first involving local experts and then a "restructured" governing body. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab countries, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, numerous of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the global community, and especially the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that widespread conflict will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In summary, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

This is why European leaders are mistaken to consider support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as separate or opposing. It is expedient but factually wrong to view the first as belonging to the peace process and the latter to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the first timid moves toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.