🔗 Share this article

The first stage of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has provoked a widespread sense of relief among EU officials. After two years of violence, the truce, hostage exchanges, limited IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, create an excuse for European nations to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, leading to political gridlock. But worse than inaction is the accusation of collusion in violations of international law. European institutions have refused to apply leverage on those responsible while continuing commercial, political, and defense partnership.

Israel's violations have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet EU governments have become disconnected with their constituents, particularly youth. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. Those same young people are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a conflict that numerous observers call a genocide for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from the previous year.

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

Contrasting Responses and Damaged Credibility

In June, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's foreign policy chief paused efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for freedom and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the eyes of the world.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Currently, the American proposal has offered Europe with an escape route. It has enabled EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, like their stance on Ukraine, security, and trade. It has permitted them to trumpet a fresh beginning of stability in the Middle East, redirecting focus from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

The EU has retreated into its comfort zone of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are expected to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance support, and frontier supervision. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is understandable. The US initiative is the sole existing framework and undoubtedly the only plan with some possibility, even if limited, of success. This is not due to the inherent merit of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the United States is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

However, executing the plan after its first phase is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is improbable to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

This initiative aims to move toward local administration, first involving local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means radically different things to the US, Europeans, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

The Israeli government has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an end to the war. It has not completely adhered to the truce: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Without the international community, and especially the US and Europe, 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 outstanding elements of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Conclusion

Therefore Europeans are mistaken to consider support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but factually wrong to see the first as part of the peace process and the latter 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 requirements.

Pressure applied to Israel is the only way to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a small – but positive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.