🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has elicited a widespread sense of relief among European leaders. After two years of violence, the truce, captive releases, limited IDF pullback, and humanitarian access offer hope – yet regrettably, create an excuse for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Troubling Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing policy paralysis. More alarming than passivity is the accusation of complicity in violations of international law. European institutions have refused to apply leverage on the perpetrators while continuing commercial, political, and defense partnership.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet EU governments have lost touch with their constituents, particularly younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU championed the environmental movement, responding to young people's concerns. Those same young people are now shocked by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Weak Actions

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a atrocity for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to recognise the Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the initial cautious punitive measures toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. However, neither step have been implemented. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Lost Trust

In June, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to revoke 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 taken a principled stand for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has shattered its credibility in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, the American proposal has offered Europe with an way out. It has enabled European governments to support Washington's demands, similar to their stance on Ukraine, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to trumpet a new dawn of peace in the region, shifting attention from punitive measures toward backing for the American initiative.

Europe has retreated into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with aid, rebuilding, governance support, and border monitoring. Talk of pressure on Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Geopolitical Constraints

This situation is understandable. The US initiative is the sole existing proposal and undoubtedly the single approach with some possibility, however small, of achievement. This is not due to the intrinsic value of the plan, which is problematic 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 European leaders, it is logical too.

However, executing the initiative after its first phase is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Required Action

This initiative aims to move toward local administration, first involving local experts and then a "reformed" governing body. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an end to the war. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Without the international community, and especially the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will continue being occupied. In summary, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore European leaders are wrong to consider support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as separate or opposing. It is expedient but practically incorrect to view the former as part of the paradigm of peace and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward sanctions and conditionality.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the only way to overcome diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can ultimately make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.