Europe’s cautious stance on Trump’s Gaza plan exposes ongoing contradictions in its foreign policy

European leaders’ mixed responses to Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan reveal internal divisions and a reluctance to exert meaningful pressure on Israel, raising questions about the EU’s commitment to human rights and international law amid ongoing violence.

European leaders have cautiously welcomed the first phase of US President Donald Trump’s plan to bring an end to the devastating conflict in Gaza, which has persisted for over two years with heavy casua...

lties. The plan’s initial outcomes—a ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, a partial Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, and renewed humanitarian access—have elicited a sense of relief. However, this development also reveals troubling contradictions and challenges within Europe’s approach to the crisis.

Unlike the unified and forceful European response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, European governments have been fragmented and largely paralysed in their policies regarding Gaza. According to political commentators in The Guardian, this division has not only led to inaction but verges on complicity in Israel’s alleged war crimes. Despite widespread outrage among European citizens, especially younger generations who had championed progressive causes such as climate change just a few years ago, governments in Brussels and across the continent have continued their economic, political, and military cooperation with Israel. This disconnect has significantly eroded the EU’s credibility on human rights and international law.

In recent years, some EU member states have taken symbolic steps, such as recognising the Palestinian state—an act embraced by countries including France, Britain, and Portugal, though only after considerable delay. More notably, the European Commission has proposed punitive measures against Israel, including sanctions on extremist ministers and settlers and the suspension of EU trade benefits under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Yet, these proposals remain stalled. The requirement for unanimous agreement among the 27 member states, coupled with resistance from countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Italy, has resulted in inertia. This contrasts sharply with the EU’s robust sanction packages against Russia, highlighting a dissonance in Europe’s foreign policy priorities and principles.

Despite the European External Action Service’s internal review indicating that Israel may have violated its human rights obligations—including the blockade of humanitarian aid, military strikes on hospitals, forced displacements, and settlement expansions—the EU has so far refrained from decisive action. The foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, recently paused efforts to suspend trade privileges, and the upcoming EU summit appears unlikely to change this stance. Critics argue that Europe’s reluctance to pressure Israel undermines the very foundations of its commitment to democracy and international law.

Trump’s Gaza plan has provided a convenient escape route for Europe, allowing leaders to align themselves with US diplomacy and present an image of engagement without confronting the more difficult task of holding Israel accountable. European governments have signalled readiness to contribute to humanitarian aid, reconstruction, governance support, and border monitoring, with the expectation that Arab and Muslim-majority countries will undertake the more strenuous role in stabilisation forces. However, Israeli insistence that European involvement in Gaza’s reconstruction hinges on dropping punitive measures reveals a problematic dynamic—Europe’s willingness to prioritise a role in reconstruction over asserting pressure on Israel.

The Trump plan itself is fraught with complexities and contradictions. The plan presupposes a transition towards Palestinian self-government, initially led by technocrats and later by a “reformed” Palestinian Authority—a concept that remains deeply contested among the US, Europe, Arab nations, and Palestinians. Israel’s government has consistently repudiated the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and the idea of a Palestinian state, emphasising the destruction of Hamas as its main objective and avoiding any discussion of ending the war. Crucially, the ceasefire has been tenuous, with numerous violations leading to continued Palestinian civilian casualties.

European leaders urge a swift acceptance of the plan, particularly from Hamas, viewing it as a critical opportunity for peace. Yet, broad denunciations of previous US proposals—such as Trump’s controversial earlier suggestion to relocate Gaza’s Palestinian population, which drew condemnation from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French officials, and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan—highlight the sensitivity and complexity of achieving a just resolution. Many European officials have stressed adherence to international law and the necessity of a two-state solution, rejecting any plans that entail forced displacement or ethnic cleansing.

Currently, the delicate balance between supporting US-led diplomacy and imposing meaningful pressure on Israel presents a strategic dilemma for the EU. Commentary suggests that Europe’s perception of these goals as separate is misguided. Effective pressure on Israel is indispensable to overcoming political impasses within the peace plan’s framework. Without it, mass violence risks resuming and Gaza, together with the West Bank, will remain under occupation and insecurity.

In sum, Europe’s response to the Gaza conflict—and to Trump’s plan—reveals a crisis of political will and moral clarity. While the US’s unique leverage over Israel offers hope for progress, Europe’s failure to reconcile its rhetoric on human rights with its actions could condemn the region to further conflict and stagnation. European governments face mounting pressure from their own citizens and international partners to move beyond symbolic gestures and become active agents for peace through principled, unified, and sustained pressure on all parties involved.

Source: Noah Wire Services