The EU's Complicity in the Gaza Conflict: Why Trump's Plan Should Not Excuse Responsibility

The initial stage of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a widespread sense of relief among European leaders. Following 24 months of bloodshed, the ceasefire, hostage exchanges, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and humanitarian access provide optimism – yet regrettably, create an excuse for Europe to persist with passivity.

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 poorest performance. They are divided, leading to political gridlock. But worse than inaction is the charge of complicity in violations of international law. European institutions have been unwilling to apply leverage on those responsible while maintaining economic, diplomatic, and defense partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their constituents, particularly youth. In 2020, the EU spearheaded the climate agenda, responding to young people's concerns. These very youth are now appalled by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Weak Actions

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for multiple EU countries including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to recognise the Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from last year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the first timid punitive measures toward Israel, including sanctioning radical officials and aggressive colonists, plus halting EU trade preferences. Nevertheless, neither step have been implemented. The initial requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but key countries' objections have made it meaningless.

Contrasting Responses and Lost Credibility

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's foreign policy chief halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The difference with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has shattered 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 enabled European governments to support US requirements, similar to their stance on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has permitted them to trumpet a new dawn of stability in the region, redirecting focus from sanctions toward backing for the US plan.

Europe has retreated into its comfort zone of playing second fiddle to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, administrative help, and border monitoring. Talk of leveraging Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is understandable. The US initiative is the sole existing framework and certainly the only plan with any chance, even if limited, of achievement. This is not due to the intrinsic value of the plan, which is flawed at best. It is instead because the United States is the only player with necessary leverage over Israel to effect change. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore both practical for Europeans, it is logical too.

However, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is more challenging than anticipated. Multiple hurdles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas lays down weapons. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel departs.

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

This initiative aims to move toward local administration, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the US, Europeans, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a independent Palestine.

The Israeli government has been explicitly clear in repeating its unchanged aim – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded addressing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the ceasefire: since it came into effect, dozens of non-combatants have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while others have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the international community, and particularly the Americans and Europeans, apply more leverage on Israel, the likelihood exists that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In short, the remaining points of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Conclusion

This is why Europeans are mistaken to view backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to view the former as belonging to the peace process and the latter to one of continuing war. This is not the moment for the EU and its constituent countries 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 successful, Europe can ultimately make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to peace in the Middle East.