EU foreign ministers gathered on 20 October to discuss, among other things, the situation in the Middle East. As expected, the conversation revolved mainly around the fragile ceasefire in Gaza and the EU’s role in the plan elaborated by US President Trump to bring “peace” in the region.
All Ministers praised both the ceasefire and the plan, and most underlined that the EU should be more involved including through the reinforcement of existing EU missions such as EUBAM Rafah and EUPOL COPPS.
It is understandable that the EU, main donor to the Palestinian Authority, wants to play a role in what some call a “peace plan”. If it is to play a role, the EU must do so in a principled and human rights-based manner. This means bringing to the table some key elements that are missing from the plan drafted by the US administration. This includes accountability, Palestinian voices and addressing the unlawful occupation.
The need for accountability
On accountability, it must be clear that an agreement on a ceasefire and potentially a broader “peace plan” does not erase violations of international law committed in the past years.
The EU’s commitment to international law must, at the very least, translate into Member States upholding their obligations under the Rome Statute, including by enforcing arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Member States could also enact or update universal jurisdiction legislation allowing their courts to exercise jurisdiction over international crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). The EU could adopt further sanctions against violent settlers and officials supporting the settlement enterprise or other violations of international law in the oPt.
A locally-driven change
Palestinians were not consulted in the drafting of President Trump’s plan. Their involvement, according to the plan, would be through an “apolitical technical committee” in Gaza that would probably have very limited competences and would work under the oversight of a “Board of Peace” to be chaired by Donald Trump. While the EU may wish to engage with such initiatives to influence outcomes, it must take care not to legitimise structures or processes that contravene international law or exclude Palestinian representation.
As we argued in a post in March 2024, the participation of Palestinian civil society is essential for fostering locally-driven change and ensuring that any peace process reflects the needs and aspirations of the affected communities. Given its lack of legitimacy, involving the Palestinian Authority alone is not going to be enough; civil society participation will be of critical importance.
The EU must rely on its ties with Palestinian partners to ensure that their voices are heard, and that they get to decide their future. This should be done by including Palestinian partners in all processes that regard them, including the Palestine Donor Group that is due to meet in November. The EU must also consult on a more regular and meaningful fashion with a range of Palestinian voices.
Using the EU’s leverage to address the unlawful occupation
Finally, the plan presented by President Trump ignores the West Bank including East Jerusalem and focuses solely on the Gaza Strip. It is understandable that the priority was to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages, and that therefore little or no attention was given to the rest of the oPt. Nevertheless, if the international community is now committed to a broader “peace plan” the conversation must include all the occupied territory and address what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found to be an unlawful occupation.
Here again, the EU has tools, aside from its support to the Palestinian Authority economic viability, to ensure that, at the very least, it is not complicit in the unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory.
The European External Action Service (EEAS) provided a list of measures that the EU could take to respond to violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Gaza. These measures include the suspension of Israel’s participation in the Horizon programme, sanctions on violent settlers, the full or partial suspension of the EU – Israel Association Agreement. On 20 November, EU Ministers for Foreign Affairs decided to keep these options on the table so that the threat of sanction could be used to ensure unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid in Gaza.
The EU should instead use these measures to ensure that Israel comply with its obligations under international law in general, not just in the context of aid in Gaza.
At the very least, and outside of the options put forward by the EEAS, the EU should adopt as soon as possible an EU-wide ban on trade with settlements therefore bringing its trade policy in compliance with international law.
The EU falling short of expectations
Unfortunately, a four-pager produced by the EEAS on the EU’s contribution to the plan put forward by President Trump falls short to address all the issues mentioned above. The document only refers to IHL once, without any elaboration, the references to the West Bank are scarce, and it never mentions human rights or accountability. One may wonder how this position could be in line with the EU’s treaty obligations.
Under article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU has an obligation to ensure that its foreign policy is guided by the principles of “democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law”.
Conclusion
As it stands, the EU risks becoming a passive participant in a so-called “peace process” that excludes those most affected and fails to address the core issues at hand. By advancing accountability, supporting Palestinian participation, and addressing the occupation, the EU has the means to engage constructively without legitimising flawed frameworks. Acting on these principles would allow the EU to contribute to peace in a way that upholds international law and its own treaty obligations.
Read more
- ACT Palestine Forum statement, “The war has paused, but the wounds remain”: here.
- Act Church of Sweden statement, “Now the ceasefire must be protected”: here.
This article does not necessarily represent the views of ACT Alliance EU members.
