🔗 Share this article

The initial stage of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has provoked a collective sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the truce, hostage exchanges, partial IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to persist with passivity.

The EU's Troubling Position on the Gaza War

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, causing political gridlock. But worse than passivity is the charge of complicity in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have refused to exert pressure on those responsible while maintaining commercial, diplomatic, and military partnership.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet EU governments have become disconnected with their own people, especially younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU championed the climate agenda, addressing young people's concerns. Those same young people are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Weak Actions

It took two years of a war that numerous observers call a genocide for multiple EU countries including France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after other European nations' lead from the previous year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus halting EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, both measures have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among all member states – unlikely given strong opposition from countries like Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Approaches and Damaged Credibility

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat paused efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The contrast with the EU's multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall 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

Now, the American proposal has offered Europe with an way out. It has enabled EU nations to support US requirements, similar to their approach on Ukraine, security, and trade. It has permitted them to trumpet a fresh beginning of stability in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward European support for the American initiative.

Europe has withdrawn into its comfort zone of playing second fiddle to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are lining up to participate with aid, reconstruction, governance support, and border monitoring. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is understandable. Trump's plan is the sole existing framework and certainly the only plan with some possibility, even if limited, of success. This is not due to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the United States is the only player with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, implementing the initiative after its first phase is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Required Action

The plan aims to move toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring local experts and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means radically different things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the concept of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in restating its consistent objective – the elimination of Hamas – and has carefully evaded addressing an end to the war. It has not completely adhered to the truce: since it began, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the global community, and especially the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Conclusion

This is why Europeans are wrong to view support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the first as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to discard the first timid moves toward punitive measures and conditionality.

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 stability in the Middle East.