🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has elicited a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of violence, the truce, hostage releases, partial IDF pullback, and humanitarian access provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Troubling Position on the Gaza Conflict

When it comes to the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, leading to policy paralysis. More alarming than inaction is the charge of collusion in violations of international law. European institutions have been unwilling to apply leverage on the perpetrators while continuing commercial, diplomatic, and military cooperation.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, particularly youth. Just five years ago, the EU championed the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. Those same youth are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Ineffective Actions

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a atrocity for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the Palestinian state, following Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from the previous year.

Only recently did the European Commission propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus suspending EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, both measures have been enacted. The first requires unanimous agreement among all member states – improbable given fierce resistance from nations including Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a supermajority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Trust

This summer, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. 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 international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Currently, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an escape route. It has enabled European governments to support US requirements, similar to their stance on Ukraine, defense, and trade. It has permitted them to trumpet a new dawn of peace in the Middle East, redirecting focus from punitive measures toward backing for the American initiative.

Europe has retreated into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are expected to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, governance support, and border monitoring. Talk of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. The US initiative is the only available framework and undoubtedly the single approach with some possibility, however small, of achievement. This is not due to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the United States is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Numerous hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

This initiative aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" governing body. But administrative reform means radically different things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab countries, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in repeating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the ceasefire: since it began, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Unless the global community, and particularly the US and Europe, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that widespread conflict will resume, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the plan will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore European leaders are mistaken to view support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the first as part of the peace process and the latter to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the first timid moves toward punitive measures and requirements.

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