🔗 Share this article

The first phase of Donald Trump's Middle East plan has elicited a collective sense of relief among EU officials. After two years of violence, the ceasefire, hostage releases, limited IDF pullback, and humanitarian access provide optimism – and unfortunately, create an excuse for Europe to continue inaction.

The EU's Problematic Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have revealed their poorest performance. They are divided, leading to policy paralysis. More alarming than inaction is the accusation of collusion in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have refused to exert pressure on those responsible while maintaining economic, diplomatic, and defense partnership.

Israel's violations have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet EU governments have become disconnected with their own people, especially youth. In 2020, the EU championed the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. Those same young people are now shocked by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Actions

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a atrocity for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to acknowledge the State of Palestine, following other European nations' lead from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, both measures have been enacted. The first requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – improbable given strong opposition from nations including Hungary and the Czech Republic. The second could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Approaches and Lost Credibility

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief paused efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its credibility in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Currently, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an way out. It has allowed EU nations to support Washington's demands, like their stance on Ukraine, security, and commerce. It has enabled them to trumpet a fresh beginning of stability in the Middle East, shifting attention from punitive measures toward backing for the American initiative.

Europe has withdrawn into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with aid, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

All this is understandable. The US initiative is the sole existing framework and certainly the single approach with any chance, even if limited, of success. This is not because to the inherent merit of the plan, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the US is the only player with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

However, executing the plan beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Numerous hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is improbable to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Necessary Steps

This initiative aims to move toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the US, Europeans, Arab countries, and the local population. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has been explicitly 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 came into effect, dozens of non-combatants have been killed by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Without the global community, and especially the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will remain under occupation. In short, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are wrong to consider support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as separate or contradictory. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to view the first as belonging to the peace process and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the moment for the EU and its member states to avoid responsibility, or to abandon the first timid moves toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the only way to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.