🔗 Share this article

The initial stage of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has provoked a widespread sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of violence, the ceasefire, hostage releases, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access offer hope – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

The EU's Problematic Stance on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have revealed their poorest performance. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. More alarming than passivity is the charge of complicity in violations of international law. European institutions have been unwilling to exert pressure on the perpetrators while maintaining economic, political, and military partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage 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, addressing youth demands. These very youth are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Measures

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, 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 penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus halting EU trade preferences. However, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among all member states – improbable given fierce resistance from nations including Hungary and the Czech Republic. The other could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Contrasting Approaches and Lost Trust

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

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an way out. It has allowed European governments to support Washington's demands, like their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has permitted them to trumpet a fresh beginning of stability in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward backing for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its comfort zone of playing second fiddle to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are expected to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with aid, rebuilding, administrative help, and frontier supervision. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is understandable. The US initiative is the only available framework and undoubtedly the only plan with some possibility, even if limited, of achievement. This is not due to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is instead because the United States is the only player with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore both practical for European leaders, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is improbable to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

The plan aims to move toward local administration, initially featuring local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the US, Europeans, Arab countries, and the local population. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the truce: since it began, numerous of non-combatants have been killed by Israeli forces, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Without the global community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the remaining points of the plan will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore European leaders are mistaken to view backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but practically incorrect to see the former as part of the peace process and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to discard the first timid moves toward sanctions and conditionality.

Pressure 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.