🔗 Share this article

The first stage of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has provoked a collective sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, captive exchanges, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery offer hope – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for European nations to continue inaction.

Europe's Troubling Stance on the Gaza War

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, causing political gridlock. More alarming than inaction is the charge of complicity in violations of international law. European institutions have refused to exert pressure on the perpetrators while continuing commercial, diplomatic, and military partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet European leaders have lost touch with their own people, especially younger generations. In 2020, the EU championed the environmental movement, addressing youth demands. Those same youth are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Measures

Only after 24 months of a war that many consider a atrocity for multiple EU countries including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from last year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus halting European trade benefits. Nevertheless, both measures have been implemented. The first requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like 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

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The contrast with the EU's multiple rounds of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and global norms; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the international community.

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, similar to their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has permitted them to promote a fresh beginning of stability in the Middle East, redirecting focus from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. The US initiative is the only available proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, however small, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the plan, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the United States is the only player with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for European leaders, it makes sense too.

However, implementing the plan 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 disarm completely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Required Action

The plan aims to move toward local administration, first involving Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the US, Europe, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an end to the war. It has not completely adhered to the truce: since it began, numerous of non-combatants have been killed by IDF operations, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Unless 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 Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In short, the remaining points of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

This is why Europeans are wrong to view support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the former 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 constituent countries to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the first timid moves toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage applied to Israel is the sole method to surmount political hurdles, and if this is achieved, Europe can ultimately make a small – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.