Behind Europe's flurry of hard diplomacy was belief US had abandoned efforts to push for peace

NZ Herald

2 days ago

Together, these moves amounted to a declaration of independence from the Trump Administration on a major strategic issue that the Europeans have long tried to approach in tandem.
Interviews with a dozen officials and diplomats revealed a frantic and at times unco-ordinated push for peace after years of debate, propelled by the conclusion they could no longer wait for the United States to lead or restrain Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister.
A key part of the diplomatic effort was an eight-point plan developed quietly by British officials over the past six months and circulated among Europeans on July 29 by Jonathan Powell, Starmer's national security adviser and a veteran mediator.
Powell was an architect of the Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of bloody conflict in Northern Ireland, and has advised on several conflicts since.
A day after Powell began circulating the British plan, 22 Arab nations signed onto a declaration that mirrored its main goals at a United Nations conference co-hosted by Macron and the Saudis.
The declaration, which reflected a concerted French and Saudi diplomatic effort over several months, included for the first time a demand from the Arab League that Hamas disarm and give up power in Gaza.
After months of incremental actions, Europe's diplomatic surge reflected the global outrage over the carnage in the enclave, but also an attempt to present Israel with a transformative show of will from Arab nations that might unlock peace negotiations.
Officials familiar with the deliberations in all three countries said the flurry of activity was driven by evidence of widespread malnutrition and starvation in Gaza, growing demands from constituents for action, and a conclusion that the US had abandoned its efforts to push for peace or curtail Israeli military action.
It is unclear whether the diplomacy will make any difference on the ground.
Since Hamas killed about 1200 people and took 250 others hostage on October 7, 2023, more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli offensive, according to Gaza health officials, who do not distinguish between civilians and combatants.
But a senior adviser to Macron on the Middle East, who asked not to be identified to discuss private diplomacy, was blunt: We had to act.
On Friday, Netanyahu effectively rebuffed Europe's calls for peace when his security Cabinet approved an expansion of the war in Gaza.
His decision to escalate the war prompted even Merz, a strong supporter of Israel, to suspend any shipments of German arms that could be used in Gaza.
'Waiting to die'
It was mid-July when Starmer, his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, and their aides realised that their long-running debate over recognising a Palestinian state had reached a tipping point.
For months, they had insisted that the time wasn't right.
In the year since Starmer's Labour Party took office, they had denounced Israel's bombardment of Gaza, imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers and demanded more aid be allowed into the territory.
But as late as July 16, Lammy maintained to frustrated Labour MPs that recognising Palestine was not the same as establishing a viable state for Palestinians alongside Israel.
'I actually want to see two states,' Lammy, who travelled twice to the Israeli-occupied West Bank before becoming Foreign Secretary, said during a committee hearing. He suggested that recognising Palestine at that moment would be more of 'a symbolic thing'.
The calculus changed quickly. On July 18, Israel announced an expansion of settlements in the West Bank, a move the British Government denounced as a 'flagrant breach of international law' that would critically undermine any chance of a two-state peace.
The next day, the news media published pictures of starving children in Gaza, their bones protruding from emaciated bodies.
It was a one-two punch, according to two senior British officials. The situation on the ground was rapidly deteriorating. Public pressure on Starmer was growing.
On July 23, Sarah Champion, a Labour MP, received a call from a friend in Gaza who was struggling to find food. 'My family and friends are just waiting to die now,' she said her friend told her.
The next morning, Champion sent WhatsApp messages and emails to her colleagues, asking them to sign a letter calling on the Prime Minister to recognise Palestine.
In the end, more than 255 signed.
One card to play
Macron's announcement came late on July 24. 'Peace is possible,' he wrote on social media, sharing a letter to Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority.
His language reflected the pressure he felt to move quickly: 'It is urgent to implement the only viable solution to fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people'.
Macron had been signalling for weeks that he wanted to make the announcement, but at times appeared hesitant.
A British official said Britain had discussed a joint recognition of Palestine, but Macron made his announcement without telling it, either.
After almost two years of war, French diplomats were frustrated by Israel's refusal to curb its military action or to plan for the post-war stabilisation of Gaza.
Macron had lost patience with President Donald Trump, who no longer seemed to support a two-state solution and appeared uninterested in pressuring Netanyahu.
The French President wanted momentum in the quest for peace, in part to support moderate Arab states that also want progress toward a Palestinian state.
With France being the only nuclear power in the European Union, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and home to both the largest Jewish and the largest Muslim communities in Western Europe, Macron knew recognition of Palestine would resonate with many other nations.
'France had basically one card to play,' said Rym Momtaz, an expert in French foreign policy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'Recognition of a Palestinian state.'
French President Emmanuel Macron had lost patience with US President Donald Trump, who no longer seemed to support a two-state solution and appeared uninterested in pressuring Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo / Ludovic Marin, AFP
'Real starvation stuff'
Given its Nazi history and its status as one of Israel's most important allies, Germany had always been unlikely to recognise a Palestinian state before it was established. But Merz was determined to be a part of the diplomatic efforts.
A day after Macron's announcement, the German Chancellor, the French President and Starmer issued a joint statement calling for an end to the war, the release of hostages, the disarmament of Hamas, a massive influx of aid, and a halt to any Israeli plans to annex more territory.
The trio held a call the following morning. They agreed the situation was 'appalling', according to a British written summary of the meeting. Food was trickling into Gaza, but not fast enough. There was no prospect of a ceasefire.
The three nations — known as the E3 — have more influence when they are aligned. Their unity also gives them political cover domestically.
So Germany has not criticised either France or Britain on their decisions to recognise a Palestinian state, in part, a senior German official said, because it needs E3 unity to help manage its own sharp domestic critics on Gaza.
On July 27, Merz spoke with Netanyahu directly.
The chancellor left the call frustrated, according to a person familiar with the conversation, who spoke anonymously, after the Israeli Prime Minister insisted during the call that there was no starvation in Gaza and that Hamas was stealing the ample food being delivered.
The next day, Merz and Macron called in to a meeting between Trump and Starmer in Scotland. The Europeans urged Trump to pressure Netanyahu to allow more aid into Gaza, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
After the meeting, Trump acknowledged the dire situation.
'That's real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can't fake that,' Trump told reporters. 'We have to get the kids fed.'
A unity conference
The day after Trump left Britain, Starmer made it official. Britain would recognise Palestine unless Israel moved swiftly to end the war and embark on a path towards a permanent peace.
Lammy echoed his boss in a speech at the United Nations.
'It is with the hand of history on our shoulders that His Majesty's Government therefore intends to recognise the State of Palestine,' he said.
He received a standing ovation. Canada joined Britain and France soon after.
Starmer's announcement surprised the Germans. They already viewed Macron's announcement as counterproductive, hardening Israel's tone and Hamas' stance in ceasefire negotiations in Qatar, which had collapsed.
That same day, Powell began sharing drafts of the British plan with the allies in the hopes of seizing a moment when heightened global outrage was being met with new examples of political will.
Powell and others in the British Government had been working on the plan for months and had struggled to get Arab leaders to sign on. Now, along with France and Germany, they tried again.
It was unclear to the diplomats whether Trump would support the plan, which incorporated some of the same ideas that officials in foreign capitals had proposed in the past to no avail.
According to two European officials, it called for:
A technocratic Palestinian government for Gaza linked to a reformed Palestinian Authority;
An international security force;
A full withdrawal by Israel;
US-led monitoring of the ceasefire;
Ultimately two independent states.
The British plan also presented an 'annex of implementation' with a timeline that included the previously scheduled UN conference, sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, aimed at reviving efforts towards a two-state solution.
The plan envisioned Arab commitments at the conference and an eventual ceasefire in Gaza, culminating in a Saudi- and French-led peace plan for two states at the UN General Assembly in September.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had long said he wanted the kingdom to normalise relations with Israel but insisted that the war with Gaza needed to be resolved first and that there be concrete progress toward a Palestinian state.
Despite asking several times, French officials said they were unable to determine whether the US still supported a two-state, Israeli-Palestinian peace. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reacted with fury to the idea of the conference, calling it 'ill-timed' and 'a publicity stunt'.
The Europeans pushed hard ahead, despite the criticism. Starmer made calls to several Arab leaders, seeking support for the road map outlined in Powell's document, including the disarmament of Hamas and the creation of a potential UN-led force to keep the peace after the war ended. Macron and Merz had similar discussions.
The conference's final declaration surprised many veterans of Mideast diplomacy.
'Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support,' the document said, the first time such a call had been made collectively by all the Arab nations.
The declaration also welcomed the idea of 'a temporary international stabilisation mission' in Gaza that would operate at the direction of the UN.
In another era, under a different Israeli government, the declaration might have been embraced by Israel as an off-ramp from almost two years of brutal war.
It might also have been a moment for the US to assert its leverage as Israel's closest ally and the historic guarantor of its security.
However, Trump has shown little interest in pressuring Netanyahu to restrain his military or to wind down the war.
The President has not objected publicly to the Israeli decision to take over Gaza City.
Instead, Israel and the US both rejected the UN declaration.
Diplomats in Britain, France and Germany, many of whom had worked for years towards peace between Israel and Palestinians, expressed frustration at the lack of engagement by Trump, perhaps the only person in the world with the ability to push the Israeli Prime Minister to change course.
They acknowledged that Netanyahu's actions in recent days are evidence that American power is necessary to make a real difference on the ground in the conflict.
Still, several said that while they had known Netanyahu was likely to dismiss the idea, they had to try.
The alternative, they said, was to simply walk away — a choice few were willing to make.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Michael D. Shear, Steven Erlanger and Roger Cohen
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES