Europe's Involvement in the Gaza Conflict: How the US Initiative Must Not Excuse Responsibility

The first phase of the Trump administration's Middle East plan has provoked a collective feeling of reassurance 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.

Europe's Problematic Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. They are divided, leading to policy paralysis. More alarming than passivity is the charge of complicity in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have refused to exert pressure on those responsible while maintaining economic, political, and defense cooperation.

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

Delayed Acknowledgement and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a conflict that many consider a genocide for several European nations including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's example from last year.

Only recently did the European Commission propose the initial cautious punitive measures toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and aggressive colonists, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, both measures have been implemented. The initial requires unanimous agreement among 27 EU governments – unlikely given fierce resistance from nations including Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Approaches and Lost Trust

This summer, the EU determined that Israel had breached its human rights obligations under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's top diplomat halted efforts to revoke the agreement's trade privileges. The contrast with the EU's multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more stark. On Ukraine, Europe has taken a principled stand for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has shattered its reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Escape Route

Currently, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an way out. It has allowed EU nations to embrace US requirements, like their stance on Ukraine, defense, and trade. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of peace in the Middle East, redirecting focus from sanctions toward European support for the US plan.

The EU has withdrawn into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the US. While Middle Eastern nations are expected to bear responsibility for an peacekeeping mission in Gaza, EU members are preparing to contribute with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, administrative help, and frontier supervision. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Practical Obstacles and Political Realities

All this is comprehensible. The US initiative is the only available proposal and undoubtedly the only plan with some possibility, however small, of success. 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 only player with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for European leaders, it makes sense too.

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

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

This initiative aims to transition toward local administration, first involving local experts and then a "reformed" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means radically different things to the US, Europe, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel opposes this entity altogether and, with it, the concept of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli government has been brutally clear in restating its unchanged aim – the elimination of Hamas – and has studiously avoided discussing an conflict resolution. It has not completely adhered to the truce: since it came into effect, dozens of Palestinian civilians 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 likelihood exists that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In summary, the remaining points of the plan will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

This is why European leaders are mistaken to consider backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as distinct or opposing. It is politically convenient but practically incorrect to view the first 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 discard the initial cautious steps toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Pressure exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a modest – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.