Following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential elections, pundits in Europe sketched out the most likely foreign policy options in his upcoming term: interventionism with an eye on the Nobel Peace Prize or isolationism with resources focused on “making America great again.”
No one foresaw the sharp turn he took toward imperialism when he revealed that his foreign policy objectives include appropriating Canada, retaking the Panama Canal, and conquering Greenland. Before even taking the oath of office, Trump flipped one of the basic tenets of world peace: Article 2 of the UN Charter which prohibits the acquisition of territory through force.
A Mirror Image: Trump & Netanyahu
Trump’s declaration that the U.S. is entitled to take its neighbours’ land for “national security purposes” resonated with the Israeli government. The illegal settlement enterprise began in the name of “security” and it has remained a catchall pretext for every Israeli violation of international law. Bashar al-Assad’s helicopter had barely cleared Syrian airspace before the IDF took the Hermon summit because of its “immense security importance”.
Assurances that the move would be temporary are not supported by 58 years of occupation of Palestinian territory; “temporary,” in the Israeli lexicon, is subject to interpretation. The government’s own actions under Netanyahu’s leadership make one wonder whether its concerns are with the security of the State of Israel or the security of Benjamin Netanyahu’s seat in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Redefining ‘America First‘
Trump is reconciling isolationism with interventionism by redefining America First to mean the identification of foreign arenas that can be exploited to serve U.S. or, rather, the president’s interests. In the Middle East, those interests don’t lie between the river and the sea but a little further east.
Trump wants to end the Gaza war but doesn’t care whether “peace” results from an agreement or from Israel crushing the Palestinians into submission. Trump is less interested in reviving his ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan than crowning the Abraham Accords by getting Saudi Arabia on board, leading to new strategic alliances intended to keep China, Russia, and Iran at bay.
Mohammed bin Salman is eager to secure the trade and defence pacts that are at the core of the megadeal, but MbS knows he cannot normalise relations with Israel without addressing the issue of Palestinian statehood. The form that will take, however, remains to be seen, but if indications are anything to go by, the Palestinian question will be dealt with more through words than deeds.
A “Credible Pathway” to Palestinian Statehood
In announcing the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, President Biden said he believes it will provide the Palestinians with “a credible pathway” to a state of their own. Secretary Blinken used the same phrase in his parting news conference when Blinken said he hopes the plan will enable Israel and Saudi Arabia to normalise relations, “which will require a credible pathway to a Palestinian state”. The term “pathway” also features in many Saudi statements on statehood, setting a rather low bar for the Israeli prime minister.
Netanyahu, a master of the forked tongue, won’t have too much difficulty coming up with a formula that will satisfy MbS’s need to maintain the appearance of defending Palestinian rights, his own need to reassure voters that a Palestinian state will not be established on his watch, and Trump’s desire to get the deal done.
A Fragile Ceasefire
There is no comprehensive plan for a two-state solution in sight. The Gaza ceasefire agreement, welcome as it is, has more holes than Swiss cheese. At best it lays an uncharted course that may lead to the last of the hostages and a full IDF withdrawal from the Strip. If it holds together until Phase Three, we may get to the long-awaited “day after”; reconstruction of Gaza will begin, and some form of Palestinian government will be established.
Then there’s the U.S. megadeal in which Israel gets accepted by the leading Arab state, Saudi Arabia gets rewarded with a U.S. defence deal, and the Palestinians get… a pathway, a process, a promise that if they check all the boxes, they may someday be granted a state of their own. In the unscrupulous universe of Donald Trump, that’s good enough.
What Does this Mean for Europe and the Rest of the World?
This year will mark the 75th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration on the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, the precursor to the European Union. The goals of the ECSC founding members – Belgium, Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg – went far beyond economic interests and spoke of safeguarding world peace. The declaration stated that “the contribution which an organised and living Europe can bring to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations.” Among the objectives of the EU outlined in the Maastricht Treaty is “to develop and consolidate democracy and human rights.”
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Middle East, the EU-27 has been derelict in asserting its independence from Uncle Sam and launching efforts to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine. Since the Oslo talks shifted from Norwegian to U.S. patronage in 1993, Europe has left it to the Americans to resolve the conflict and has largely followed their lead. Europe has often surpassed the United States when condemning Israeli violations of international law, and it has taken independent positions in votes at the United Nations, but there has been little of significance in terms of deeds – that is, until the horrors of 7 October and the following war stirred some European leaders into action.
Recognition by Four European States
In May 2024, Norway, Ireland, and Spain, followed by Slovenia, stepped into the diplomatic vacuum and announced that they were officially recognising the State of Palestine to contribute to achieving peace and security between Israel and Palestine. In effect, they reversed a longstanding position by placing the recognition of Palestine first, as a step leading to peace negotiations, rather than making successful peace negotiations a requirement for recognition.
At the time, expectations were high that other European states would follow, but that failed to happen. Some who did not take the leap have since become convinced that recognition is indeed the best way to protect the two-state solution, but they are hesitant to act alone, fearing the wrath of the Israeli government or repercussions at the ballot boxes.
In the Spirit of Maastricht
Donald Trump’s re-entry into the White House, however, has raised the stakes. Unlike his first term, he is stronger domestically with control of all branches of government and is facing a fragmented European arena that is grappling with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Trump 2.0 has the power to squelch the international rules-based order and replace it with a system where the highest bid outweighs legitimacy and justice. In his own words, he plans to promote “peace through strength.”
By recognising the State of Palestine, the founding members of the EU would not only boost efforts to make the vision of two states a reality. They would be challenging Trump by exhibiting determination to uphold the EU foreign and security policy of resolving conflicts through “diplomacy and respect for international rules”. With this move, Europe would also be demonstrating to the Israeli government that Trump is not the only sheriff in town and taking an important step toward restoring the Palestinians’ faith in diplomacy.
Joint recognition of Palestine by Belgium, Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg would buttress international law by standing up for the equal right of all peoples, including both Israelis and Palestinians, to self-determination. At this critical juncture, when basic human values are under attack by a U.S. administration that believes “might makes right,” it falls to Europe to assert its identity on the international scene in the spirit of Maastricht and forge a path to Middle East peace with dignity.
