Europe's Involvement in the Gaza Conflict: Why Trump's Plan Must Not Excuse Responsibility

The initial phase of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has provoked a collective feeling of reassurance among EU officials. After two years of bloodshed, the ceasefire, captive exchanges, partial Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

The EU's Troubling Position on the Gaza War

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their poorest performance. They are divided, causing political gridlock. More alarming than passivity is the charge of complicity in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have been unwilling to exert pressure on those responsible while continuing economic, political, and defense cooperation.

The breaches of international law have sparked widespread anger among European citizens, yet European leaders have become disconnected with their constituents, particularly youth. Just five years ago, the EU championed the climate agenda, addressing youth demands. These very young people are now shocked by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Acknowledgement and Weak Actions

Only after 24 months of a conflict that many consider a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to recognise the State of Palestine, after other European nations' example from last year.

Only recently did the EU executive propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including penalizing radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – improbable given strong opposition from countries like Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a supermajority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Responses and Damaged Trust

This summer, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. However, recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to suspend the agreement's trade privileges. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of Russian sanctions could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and global norms; on Gaza, it has damaged its credibility in the eyes of the world.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Currently, the American proposal has provided Europe with an way out. It has allowed European governments to support US requirements, like their approach on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to promote a fresh beginning of peace in the Middle East, redirecting focus from punitive measures toward backing for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its comfort zone of taking a secondary role to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are preparing to participate with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Talk of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the sole existing proposal and certainly the single approach with some possibility, however small, of achievement. This is not due to the intrinsic value 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 not just convenient for Europeans, it is logical too.

Nevertheless, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple obstacles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Necessary Steps

The plan aims to move toward local administration, first involving local experts and then a "reformed" governing body. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europeans, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

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 completely adhered to the truce: since it came into effect, numerous of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces, while others have been shot by Hamas.

Unless the global community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In short, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

This is why European leaders are mistaken to view backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is expedient but factually wrong to see the first as belonging to the peace process and the second 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 sanctions and requirements.

Leverage exerted on 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 region.