🔗 Share this article

The first phase of Donald Trump's Middle East plan has elicited a widespread sense of relief among EU officials. Following 24 months of violence, the truce, hostage exchanges, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access provide optimism – yet regrettably, create an excuse for European nations to persist with passivity.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the war in Gaza, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, European governments have displayed their poorest performance. They are divided, leading to political gridlock. More alarming than passivity is the accusation of collusion in violations of international law. EU bodies have refused to apply leverage on those responsible while maintaining commercial, diplomatic, and defense cooperation.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among European citizens, yet European leaders have become disconnected with their constituents, particularly youth. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, responding to youth demands. These very youth are now appalled by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Delayed Recognition and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the State of Palestine, following other European nations' lead from last year.

Just last month did the EU executive propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus halting EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – 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 Damaged Trust

In June, the EU determined that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. But recently, the EU's foreign policy chief 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 democracy and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Currently, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an escape route. It has enabled European governments to embrace Washington's demands, like their approach on the Ukrainian conflict, security, and commerce. It has permitted them to promote a fresh beginning of peace in the Middle East, shifting attention from punitive measures toward backing for the American initiative.

The EU has retreated into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the United States. While Middle Eastern nations are anticipated to bear responsibility for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Geopolitical Constraints

All this is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the only available proposal and undoubtedly the single approach with some possibility, even if limited, of achievement. This is not because to the inherent merit of the plan, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to effect change. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan after its first phase is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Required Action

The plan aims to move toward Palestinian self-government, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab nations, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has studiously avoided addressing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the truce: since it began, numerous of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by Israeli forces, while others have been injured by Hamas.

Unless the international community, and particularly the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will continue being occupied. In summary, the outstanding elements of the plan will not be implemented.

Conclusion

Therefore Europeans are mistaken to consider backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to see the first as part of 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 avoid responsibility, or to abandon the first timid moves toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Pressure applied to Israel is the sole method to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can ultimately make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the region.