🔗 Share this article

The first phase of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has provoked a collective sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the truce, captive exchanges, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to persist with passivity.

Europe's Troubling Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their poorest performance. Deep divisions exist, causing political gridlock. But worse than inaction is the charge of collusion in violations of international law. EU bodies have been unwilling to apply leverage on the perpetrators while continuing economic, diplomatic, and defense cooperation.

Israel's violations have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet European leaders have lost touch with their constituents, particularly youth. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, addressing youth demands. Those same youth are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Actions

It took two years of a conflict that numerous observers call a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the Palestinian state, following other European nations' example from last year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious punitive measures toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus suspending EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, neither step have been implemented. The first requires complete consensus among all member states – improbable given strong opposition from countries like Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Approaches and Lost Trust

This summer, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's multiple rounds of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its credibility in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Now, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an escape route. It has enabled European governments to embrace US requirements, like their approach on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to trumpet a new dawn of peace in the region, redirecting focus from punitive measures toward European support for the US plan.

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, EU members are lining up to participate with aid, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the sole existing framework and certainly the only plan with some possibility, however small, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is problematic at best. It is rather 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 European leaders, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, implementing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. 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.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

This initiative aims to move toward local administration, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats 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 concept of a independent Palestine.

The Israeli government has been brutally clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the ceasefire: since it came into effect, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while additional individuals have been shot by Hamas.

Without the global community, and especially the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that widespread conflict will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In short, 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 distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the former as part of the paradigm of peace and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the time 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 sole method to surmount political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a small – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.