🔗 Share this article

The first phase of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has elicited a widespread sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, hostage exchanges, partial IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – yet regrettably, furnish a pretext for Europe to persist with passivity.

The EU's Problematic Stance on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. But worse than passivity is the charge of collusion in violations of international law. EU bodies have refused to exert pressure on the perpetrators while maintaining commercial, political, 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. In 2020, the EU championed the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. These very young people are now shocked by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Ineffective Actions

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the Palestinian state, following Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from the previous year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires unanimous agreement among all member states – unlikely given strong opposition from nations including Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Approaches and Lost Credibility

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's top diplomat paused 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 taken a principled stand for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its credibility in the eyes of the world.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Now, the American proposal has offered Europe with an escape route. It has enabled EU nations to support US requirements, like their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to trumpet a fresh beginning of peace in the Middle East, redirecting focus from punitive measures toward backing for the US plan.

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 peacekeeping mission in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with aid, reconstruction, governance support, and border monitoring. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. The US initiative is the sole existing framework and undoubtedly the only plan with some possibility, even if limited, of achievement. This is not because to the inherent merit of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the US is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for Europeans, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, executing the plan after its first phase is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is improbable to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

The plan aims to transition toward Palestinian self-government, first involving local experts and then a "restructured" governing body. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the US, Europeans, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the ceasefire: since it began, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Unless the global community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that widespread conflict will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the remaining points of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

Therefore Europeans are wrong to consider support for Trump's plan and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the former as part of the peace process and the latter to one of continuing war. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to abandon the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Leverage applied to Israel is the only way to surmount political hurdles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a modest – but positive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.