The EU's Complicity in the Gaza War: How the US Initiative Should Not Excuse Responsibility

The first phase of Donald Trump's Gaza proposal has elicited a widespread sense of relief among European leaders. After two years of violence, the ceasefire, captive releases, limited Israeli military withdrawal, and aid delivery offer hope – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Problematic Stance on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the Gaza conflict, in contrast to Russia's invasion in Ukraine, European governments have revealed their worst colours. They are divided, causing policy paralysis. But worse than inaction is the charge of complicity in Israel's war crimes. EU bodies have been unwilling to apply leverage on those responsible while continuing economic, political, and defense partnership.

The breaches of international law have triggered mass outrage among the European public, yet European leaders have become disconnected with their constituents, especially younger generations. In 2020, the EU championed the climate agenda, addressing young people's concerns. Those same youth are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Delayed Acknowledgement and Ineffective Measures

It took two years of a war that numerous observers call a genocide for several European nations including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden to acknowledge the State of Palestine, following other European nations' lead from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the first timid sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus suspending European trade benefits. However, neither step have been enacted. The initial requires complete consensus among all member states – improbable given fierce resistance from nations including Poland and Austria. The second could pass with a supermajority, but key countries' objections have rendered it ineffective.

Contrasting Responses and Damaged Credibility

In June, the EU found that Israel had violated its human rights commitments under the bilateral trade deal. But recently, the EU's top diplomat paused efforts to revoke the preferential trade terms. The contrast with the EU's 19 packages of sanctions on Russia could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for freedom and global norms; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the international community.

The US Initiative as an Convenient Excuse

Now, Trump's plan has provided Europe with an way out. It has allowed EU nations to embrace Washington's demands, similar to their stance on the Ukrainian conflict, defense, and trade. It has permitted them to promote a new dawn of peace in the region, shifting attention from punitive measures toward European support for the US plan.

The EU has retreated into its familiar position of playing second fiddle to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are lining up to participate with aid, rebuilding, administrative help, and border monitoring. Talk of pressure on Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

All this is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the sole existing proposal and undoubtedly the single approach 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 rather because the US is the sole actor with necessary leverage over Israel to alter behavior. Supporting US diplomacy is therefore not just convenient for Europeans, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, implementing the plan beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Numerous obstacles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is improbable to fully pull out 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 Palestinian self-government, first involving Palestinian technocrats and then a "restructured" Palestinian Authority. But reformed authority means vastly distinct things to the US, Europe, Arab nations, and the local population. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a independent Palestine.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in restating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an end to the war. It has not fully respected the truce: since it came into effect, dozens of Palestinian civilians have been killed by IDF operations, while additional individuals have been injured by militant groups.

Without the global community, and particularly the US and Europe, apply more leverage on Israel, the odds are that mass violence will restart, and Gaza – as well as the West Bank – will remain under occupation. In summary, the outstanding elements of the initiative will not see the light of day.

Final Analysis

This is why Europeans are wrong to view backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as separate or contradictory. It is politically convenient but factually wrong to see the first as belonging to 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 first timid moves toward sanctions and requirements.

Leverage applied to Israel is the sole method to surmount diplomatic obstacles, and if this is achieved, Europe can finally make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the region.