🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a collective sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the truce, hostage releases, limited IDF pullback, and humanitarian access offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza War

Regarding the war in Gaza, in contrast to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. More alarming than passivity is the accusation of complicity in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have refused to apply leverage on the perpetrators while maintaining commercial, political, and military partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, especially younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, addressing young people's concerns. These very young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Measures

Only after 24 months of a conflict that many consider a atrocity for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, following other European nations' example from last year.

Just last month did the EU executive propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus halting European trade benefits. However, both measures have been enacted. The initial requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a supermajority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Approaches and Damaged Credibility

This summer, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's 19 packages 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 reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Now, the American proposal has offered Europe with an way out. It has allowed EU nations to embrace US requirements, like their approach on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to promote a new dawn of peace in the region, shifting attention from sanctions toward European support for the American initiative.

The EU has retreated into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are preparing to participate with aid, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. The US initiative is the only available framework and certainly the only plan with any chance, however small, of success. This is not because to the intrinsic value of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the US is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for European leaders, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the initiative beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Multiple obstacles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

The plan aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, first involving local experts and then a "reformed" governing body. But reformed authority means radically different things to the US, Europe, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Without the international 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 West Bank – will continue being occupied. In summary, the remaining points of the plan will not be implemented.

Conclusion

This is why Europeans are wrong to consider backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to see the former as belonging to the paradigm of peace and the latter 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 discard the first timid moves toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the only way to overcome political hurdles, and if successful, Europe can finally make a modest – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.