🔗 Share this article

The first stage of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has elicited a collective sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, captive releases, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to persist with passivity.

The EU's Troubling Stance on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their poorest performance. Deep divisions exist, leading to political gridlock. More alarming than passivity is the accusation of complicity in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have refused to apply leverage on those responsible while maintaining economic, diplomatic, and military cooperation.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet EU governments have lost touch with their constituents, especially younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing youth demands. These very youth are now shocked by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Actions

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 example from last year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the initial cautious punitive measures toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, neither step have been implemented. The initial requires complete consensus among all member states – unlikely given strong opposition from nations including 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 Trust

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its credibility in the eyes of the world.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an escape route. It has enabled EU nations to support US requirements, similar to their approach on Ukraine, defense, and trade. It has permitted them to promote a new dawn of stability in the Middle East, shifting attention from punitive measures 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, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, administrative help, and frontier supervision. Talk of leveraging 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 instead because the US is the only player with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for European leaders, it is logical too.

However, executing the plan after its first phase is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

This initiative aims to move toward local administration, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europe, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the ceasefire: since it came into effect, dozens of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the global community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that widespread conflict will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the plan will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore European leaders are mistaken to view backing the US initiative and pressure on Israel as separate or contradictory. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the first as part of the peace process and the latter to one of ongoing conflict. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries to feel let off the hook, or to discard the first timid moves toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can finally make a modest – but positive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.