President Donald Trump has recently made a series of bold statements regarding Gaza, Hamas, and the broader Palestinian issue. He has shattered long-held diplomatic assumptions about the Middle East, dramatically expanding the Overton window of acceptable discourse. Among his more striking proposals, Trump has suggested relocating or evacuating at least some of Gaza's residents to a third country and even floated the idea of the U.S. taking over Gaza and transforming it into a "Riviera of the Middle East."
While such remarks leave many observers "scratching their heads," as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted in a recent press conference, they often shift the debate and influence policy discussions—much like the Abraham Accords, which were once deemed impossible without a sovereign Palestinian state by most pundits and politicians at the time. However, unlike the European Union (EU), which clings to outdated frameworks, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to seek new solutions, challenging long-standing diplomatic assumptions, and pushing the region toward unexpected shifts.
The EU's Moral Slump vs. Trump's Bold Approach
Today, the EU does not have a seat at the table. It remains stuck in the 1990s Oslo process, willfully ignoring the new realities on the ground. By clinging to the '90's two-state solution without demanding Palestinian demilitarization and deradicalization, the EU overlooks the transformative impact of the Abraham Accords, which have established diplomatic relations between Israel and four Arab-majority nations—the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—without the precondition of Palestinian statehood. Now, as Israel and Saudi Arabia discuss potential normalization—where Israel may agree not to annex the West Bank in exchange for future recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state—the EU remains absent from shaping these historic shifts, still attached to a failed diplomatic framework.
The EU appears uninterested in the new Overton window that Trump has opened. More concerning, it seems uninterested in playing a serious role as a broker in the Middle East. With Trump reaffirming commitments to Israel and moderate Arab allies, the EU has been sidelined and rendered increasingly irrelevant. Meanwhile, the European diplomatic machine remains paralyzed by bureaucratic inertia and outdated frameworks, incapable of responding swiftly to evolving geopolitical realities.
However, it's not only a matter of bureaucratic paralysis, but a complete lack of moral courage or clarity. When it comes to Israel—a liberal democratic society—and Gaza—a territory ruled by medieval fanatics—very few European politicians are capable of seeing any difference between the two societies and cultures. The inability to distinguish between two widely different value systems is indicative of Europe's own failure to communicate what it stands for. Its politicians talk bravely about the importance of human rights and democracy but seldom follow through. In recent months, Turkey has hosted high-level visitors from EU countries, and France's Emmanuel Macron recently invited Syria's new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, an Islamist, for a state visit. What is striking is that these leaders only find courage to condemn the region's only viable democracy while showing no moral outrage for others.
The EU's Irrelevance in the Middle East
Despite historic developments, the EU refuses to adapt. It continues to push an outdated framework while key regional players, including Saudi Arabia, explore diplomatic normalization with Israel. The EU's fixation on old models, without acknowledging the new political realities, has led to its exclusion from serious negotiations. While the two-state model is not necessarily dead and buried, the conditions under which it can be realized have drastically changed.
This irrelevance is evident in individual EU member states as well. Post-Oct. 7 contributions from Finland to the Middle East conversation have amounted to little more than calls for a ceasefire or one-sided condemnations of Israel. Attempts to promote Finnish member of Parliament Pekka Haavisto—an avowed two-stater à la Oslo—as the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process exemplifies the EU's outdated assumptions, still rooted in the Oslo process. Israel blocked Haavisto's nomination for the high-profile role.
The EU's response to the rise of antisemitism across its capitals has been underwhelming. Meanwhile, terror attacks in Europe—some allegedly funded by Iran—should serve as a final wake-up call for the EU to adopt a more security-focused approach to Middle Eastern affairs.
The collapse of Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime further underscores the shifting geopolitical landscape and presents a new opportunity to strengthen anti-terror and anti-Iran cooperation in the region. After all, Syria's autocratic regime—a close ally of Russia—came apart as a result of Israel's defensive war against Iran and Hezbollah.
The EU's Struggle to Remain Relevant
Recent developments highlight the EU's internal struggles in adapting to the evolving realities of the Middle East. As a global power, the EU has the capacity to shape events, but it lacks the political will and strategic vision to do so.
The UN stayed largely silent on Hamas terrorism but swiftly condemned Israel's defensive actions. While many EU leaders condemned the Oct. 7 massacre, they soon shifted to criticizing Israel. As the Middle East transforms, the EU risks becoming a passive observer. Will it adapt or fade into irrelevance?
Dr. Alpo Rusi is a distinguished diplomat who served as Finland's ambassador to Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and the Holy See. He is also a recognized scholar in international relations and Finnish history, with several publications in Finland, the United States, and Great Britain. Follow him on X here.
Dennis Mitzner is a journalist and commentator based in Helsinki. He holds an MA in Middle Eastern History from Tel Aviv University. Follow him on X here or connect on Linkedin.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Is This Article Trustworthy?
Is This Article Trustworthy?
Newsweek is committed to journalism that is factual and fair
We value your input and encourage you to rate this article.
Newsweek is committed to journalism that is factual and fair
We value your input and encourage you to rate this article.
