🔗 Share this article

The first phase of Donald Trump's Middle East plan has provoked a collective sense of relief among EU officials. After two years of violence, the truce, hostage releases, partial IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for European nations to persist with passivity.

The EU's Troubling Stance on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their poorest performance. Deep divisions exist, leading to policy paralysis. But worse than passivity is the charge of collusion in violations of international law. EU bodies have been unwilling to apply leverage on the perpetrators while continuing commercial, diplomatic, and military cooperation.

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 championed the environmental movement, addressing youth demands. Those same youth are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Measures

It took two years of a conflict that numerous observers call a genocide for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after other European nations' example from last year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and violent settlers, plus halting European trade benefits. However, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – unlikely given fierce resistance from countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. The second could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have made it meaningless.

Divergent Responses and Lost Credibility

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's top diplomat paused efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The contrast with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Now, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an way out. It has allowed EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, similar to their stance on Ukraine, security, and trade. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of peace in the region, redirecting focus from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are lining up to participate with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and frontier supervision. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the sole existing proposal and undoubtedly the single approach with any chance, however small, of success. 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 alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore both practical for Europeans, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Numerous hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is improbable to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

The plan aims to move toward local administration, initially featuring local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means radically different things to the US, Europe, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in repeating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, numerous of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Without the global community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In summary, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Conclusion

This is why Europeans are mistaken to consider backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the first as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the second to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and requirements.

Pressure exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.