🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, hostage releases, limited IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have revealed their poorest performance. Deep divisions exist, leading to political gridlock. More alarming than inaction is the charge of collusion in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have been unwilling to exert pressure on those responsible while continuing economic, diplomatic, and defense partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet European leaders have lost touch with their constituents, especially youth. Just five years ago, the EU championed the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. These very young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Actions

It took two years of a war that numerous observers call a atrocity for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from last year.

Just last month did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus halting EU trade preferences. However, both measures have been implemented. The first requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – improbable given strong opposition from nations including Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Approaches and Lost Trust

In June, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the eyes of the world.

The US Initiative as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, the American proposal has offered Europe with an way out. It has enabled EU nations to support Washington's demands, similar to their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has permitted them to promote a new dawn of stability in the Middle East, redirecting focus from sanctions toward backing for the American initiative.

The EU has withdrawn into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, administrative help, and border monitoring. Talk of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

This situation is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the only available proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, even if limited, of achievement. This is not because to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the United States is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, 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 lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

This initiative aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" governing body. But reformed authority means radically different things to the Americans, 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 restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has carefully evaded addressing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the international community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In summary, the remaining points of the initiative will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore Europeans are wrong to consider support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as separate or contradictory. It is expedient but practically incorrect to see the first as part of the peace process and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and requirements.

Pressure exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if this is achieved, Europe can ultimately make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the region.