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

The first stage of the Trump administration's Gaza proposal has elicited a widespread feeling of reassurance among European leaders. After two years of violence, the truce, captive exchanges, limited IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

The EU's Troubling Position on the Gaza Conflict

When it comes to the war in Gaza, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have displayed their worst colours. Deep divisions exist, causing political gridlock. But worse than inaction is the accusation of collusion in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have refused to exert pressure on the perpetrators while maintaining commercial, political, and defense cooperation.

Israel's violations have sparked widespread anger among the European public, yet EU governments have lost touch with their own people, especially younger generations. Just five years ago, the EU spearheaded the environmental movement, responding to youth demands. These very youth are now appalled by their leaders' inaction over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a war that many consider a atrocity for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the State of Palestine, after Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia's lead from the previous year.

Just last month did the EU executive propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including penalizing extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus halting EU trade preferences. However, both measures have been implemented. The initial requires complete consensus among all member states – improbable given fierce resistance from countries like Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a supermajority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Approaches and Damaged Trust

In June, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. But recently, the EU's top diplomat 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 freedom and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its credibility in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Convenient Excuse

Now, the American proposal has provided Europe with an escape route. It has allowed EU nations to embrace US requirements, similar to their approach on Ukraine, security, and commerce. It has permitted them to trumpet a new dawn of peace in the Middle East, redirecting focus from punitive measures toward backing for the US plan.

The EU has retreated into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the United States. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, EU members are lining up to contribute with humanitarian assistance, rebuilding, governance support, and border monitoring. Discussion of pressure on Israel has virtually disappeared.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is understandable. The US initiative is the only available proposal and undoubtedly the only plan with some possibility, even if limited, of achievement. This is not due to the inherent merit of the proposal, which is flawed at best. It is rather because the US is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore not just convenient for European leaders, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Multiple hurdles and catch-22s exist. Israel is unlikely to completely withdraw from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not surrender entirely unless Israel withdraws.

What Lies Ahead and Necessary Steps

This initiative aims to transition toward local administration, initially featuring Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But administrative reform means radically different things to the Americans, Europe, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

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 began, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been fatally wounded by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Unless the international community, and particularly the US and Europe, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will resume, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In short, the outstanding elements of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are mistaken to consider support for Trump's plan and pressure on Israel as distinct or contradictory. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the former as part of the peace process and the latter to one of ongoing conflict. 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 surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can finally make a modest – but positive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.