Europe borders the Middle East, and the continent cannot insulate itself from events in this region. Its options, however, are limited: Europe is hardly a strategic actor with the political will and requisite capabilities to intervene. Moreover, the Middle East is not easily amenable to foreign intervention. Nevertheless, Europe cannot ignore developments that impact its national security and if it concentrates its efforts, it may have a modest input in ensuring that pro-stability forces gain the upper hand.
The Gaza war reflects two important features of Middle Eastern politics, as well as the ongoing competition in the global system. In large parts of the Middle East, we see failures in grappling with the challenge of state building. The Hamas Islamist militia took over Gaza in a bloody coup in 2007, as the Palestinian Authority (PA) failed to maintain a monopoly over the use of force in the territory under its control. Palestinian Islamic Jihad operated along-side Hamas in Gaza, and several clans had armed militias. Similarly, militias are vying for control in Iraq (in the wake of the American departure), in Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Libya. Hezbollah, a Shiite militia has taken over Lebanon, despite the parallel existence of a national government and army. Hezbollah started a war of attrition with Israel in October 2023 without consulting the Lebanese government.
The Gaza war is also a manifestation of Iranian ambitions for hegemony in a region that was once part of the Persian empire. Iran’s Islamic revolution has sought to wage perpetual and unbridled holy war against Western civilization and to takeover Sunni Arab lands – it also targets Israel in this jihad. Many of the region’s militias have been trained, equipped, and supported by a religiously motivated Iran. While not all are fully subservient to Teheran’s preferences, they act in unison against Israel and Western interests. Iran and its proxies are the main challengers to the status quo and are actively threatening the national security of Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan and Israel. Recently, Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, was added to the list of threatened states.
The Gaza war also mirrors the main struggle in the international system against American predominance that is conducted primarily by the quartet of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The war in Ukraine has strengthened this alliance. For years, Iran has conducted a multi-front war against Israel, an American ally, and the only state that has the power to oppose its aspirations in its campaign to drive the U.S. out of region. The quartet shares this aim.
In the absence of the capability to defeat Israel on the battlefield, Hamas implements the Iranian inspired strategy that targets the civilian population of Israel hoping that it will leave under duress. The premeditated atrocities perpetrated and filmed on October 7, 2023, were intended to terrorize Israeli citizens, in the same way as the missile attacks that rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel had no choice but to counterattack and to its dismay it discovered global sympathy for Gazans (an overwhelming majority of whom have shown support for Hamas and the evil it committed on October 7), accompanied by a huge wave of antisemitic acts and statements. Europeans initially expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself, but much of their behaviour (including their voting record at the United Nations) undermined Israel’s quest to destroy completely the military capability of Hamas and the efforts to increase pressure on the organization to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. Moreover, several European states recognized the non-existent state of Palestine, thus rewarding the dysfunctional Palestinian national movement and Hamas’ terrorist activities.
How can Europe play a more positive role in making the Middle East more peaceful? What can the Europeans do to curb the current inclinations in the region for despotic regimes, terrorism, religious fanaticism and nuclear proliferation?
The developments in the Middle East have underscored an old truism. Outsiders have very little influence over Middle East outcomes; these are determined primarily by domestic forces and ingrained local political culture. Despite heroic efforts and vast financial investment, the U.S. has failed to create an Iraq in its image. Afghanistan was even more resistant to Western reform efforts. This should not be a surprise as British and French colonial rule for several decades also did not change the way the “natives” conducted business. Western attempts to intervene during the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Egypt ended in a similar failure. The ambitious project conducted by the EU to create a “civil society” in the Palestinian territories has only enriched academics and cunning civilian entrepreneurs with little influence over Palestinian political culture. Political engineering by outsiders is doomed to fail in the Middle East. Therefore, an active interventionist European foreign policy to move societies into a democratic track is unlikely to produce positive results. Europeans tend to forget that it took European states centuries to adopt a democratic system
Nevertheless, Europe or the EU can do more to support the pro-stability forces in the Middle East and weaken sources of instability. First, it should adopt a realpolitik lens and throw away its rose-tinted view of human nature. This is how Mideasterners view the world. They often muse over European naiveté, which is occasionally despised. Similarly, the discourse about creating trust is simply nonsense in the region’s political parlance. Trust is not a currency used in Middle East politics. The employment of force and fear are more useful.
Some of the actors in the Middle East are evil and engaging them diplomatically is rarely productive in limiting their mischief. Similarly, applying economic sanctions often has only meagre results. Iran has been subject to such sanctions for over two decades without any change in its behaviour. Europeans must overcome their reluctance to see military force as a useful tool in punishing and deterring the destabilizing actors. Calling for restraint and fearing escalation when a bad guy is being beaten is counterproductive.
This means accepting Israel’s objective of destroying Hamas military capabilities in order to give its citizens a respite from missile attacks. Moreover, trying to save an Islamist mini state that serves Iranian interests on the shores of the East Mediterranean is a strategic folly; over-sensitivity to the human cost in eliminating it makes little strategic sense. Its location near the Suez Canal, an important choke point and sea route, as well as to the gas deposits in the sea lends importance to who rules this area. The Europeans should appreciate efforts to minimize the presence on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean of Islamic radicals whose influence has already spread to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon Libya and the Sinai Peninsula.
A new European attitude towards the use of force also means an understanding for Israel’s need to launch a war against Hezbollah to allow its citizens displaced from the North to return home to a normal life. A military blow to Hezbollah may also provide an opportunity for Lebanon to free itself of Islamist influence and become a tolerant and prosperous state as it existed in the past. Moreover, it signals to Iran and its proxies that their actions carry costly consequences. Exacting pain for misbehaviour is the ABC of international relations.
The timidity of the U.S. and its European allies in dealing with the Houthis, an Iranian proxy blocking the Bab el Mandeb Strait, an international waterway, is intriguing. Forcing naval traffic to go to Europe around Africa, instead of the Suez Canal, carries financial costs and inflicts significant damage to the economy of Egypt, a pivotal pro-Western state in the Middle East. Tolerating this situation only encourages Iran to become more aggressive in its actions in the region and less fearful of Western retaliation.
Indeed, nowadays Iran is the main source of trouble in the Middle East. If Europe is serious about minimizing the dangers emanating from the Middle East, it must adopt a more confrontational posture toward the Mullahs in Teheran. This has become more urgent as Iran progresses quickly toward the bomb. Europe must support all actions, including the military option, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power whose missiles can reach the old continent as well. Everything should be done to halt a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. A nuclear multipolar Middle East would become a strategic nightmare for everybody in the region and its vicinity. An Iranian nuclear umbrella for Tehran’s proxies would further embolden them. The U.S., which is geographically far away from Iran and thus has a lower threat perception needs a more energetic Europe, particularly on this matter.
Europe must realize that constraining the activities of radical Islamists does not amount to Islamophobia. For example, the absurd distinction between the political and the military arm of Hamas is still accepted by some European governments. The radical anti-Western ideology of Hamas is inextricably intertwined with its violent modus operandi. Europe should outlaw Hamas in all its forms, forbid its fundraising activities and pursue all its supporters on the continent. This of course also holds true for Hezbollah. This should not be construed as a pro-Israeli policy, but a policy that strengthens moderate Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Jordan. They all abhor the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and its offshoots such as Hamas in Palestine, as well as Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and a large part of his Justice and Development (AK) party. They are all concerned about the freedom enjoyed by the followers of this movement in Europe. The MB is a larger danger for the Arab states than for Israel. Europe should be critical of Qatar, which plays a unique role in destabilizing the Middle East by funding the MB, while its Al Jazeera media network is the MB’s mouthpiece in instigating against Arab regimes. Turkey, which hosts Hamas on its soil and spreads the MB message in Europe and elsewhere deserves similar critical treatment.
Europe should announce its full support for Israel with all its means if the Jewish State is attacked by a terrorist organization. Such a statement amounts to strategic and moral clarity. Europe’s human rights nitpicking for violations during warfare in Gaza are a result of ignorance of what a modern battlefield looks like and the unprecedented efforts by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to limit the loss of civilian lives.
Europe should also overcome its obsession with the two-state solution. As noted, the Palestinians have failed miserably to meet the Weberian test of statehood – monopoly over the use of force. They established weak, corrupt and fragmented polities. The Palestinian political trajectory leads towards a civil war waged by a variety of militias, similar to other Arab states, or to a Hamas dominated entity. Moreover, all polls show that the Palestinians are still far from relinquishing their revisionist dreams and becoming peaceful neighbours of the Jewish state. The Palestinians’ real problem is not where the border between the Palestinian state and the State of Israel lies, but the very fact that there is such a border, because so many believe that there is no legitimacy for a Jewish nation-state in the Middle East. Pushing for Palestinian statehood at this stage will only increase the chances for a deadly Israeli-Palestinian war in which both sides will suffer, but the Palestinian pain for sure will be greater. The status quo – not ideal – is probably the less destructive alternative.
A peaceful Middle East is not on the cards soon. Limiting the power of the bad guys is a realistic objective, however. In addition to a more astute American foreign policy, a coherent and realistic EU strategy toward the Middle East could be a contribution in attaining such a goal.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
Photo: IMAGO / Le Pictorium / Nicolas Landemard
Home page / Policy Papers / The Gaza War and Europe: Can the Continent Play a Positive Role in The Middle East?
The Gaza War and Europe: Can the Continent Play a Positive Role in The Middle East?
Europe borders the Middle East, and the continent cannot insulate itself from events in this region. Its options, however, are limited: Europe is hardly a strategic actor with the political will and requisite capabilities to intervene. Moreover, the Middle East is not easily amenable to foreign intervention. Nevertheless, Europe cannot ignore developments that impact its national security and if it concentrates its efforts, it may have a modest input in ensuring that pro-stability forces gain the upper hand.
The Gaza war reflects two important features of Middle Eastern politics, as well as the ongoing competition in the global system. In large parts of the Middle East, we see failures in grappling with the challenge of state building. The Hamas Islamist militia took over Gaza in a bloody coup in 2007, as the Palestinian Authority (PA) failed to maintain a monopoly over the use of force in the territory under its control. Palestinian Islamic Jihad operated along-side Hamas in Gaza, and several clans had armed militias. Similarly, militias are vying for control in Iraq (in the wake of the American departure), in Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Libya. Hezbollah, a Shiite militia has taken over Lebanon, despite the parallel existence of a national government and army. Hezbollah started a war of attrition with Israel in October 2023 without consulting the Lebanese government.
The Gaza war is also a manifestation of Iranian ambitions for hegemony in a region that was once part of the Persian empire. Iran’s Islamic revolution has sought to wage perpetual and unbridled holy war against Western civilization and to takeover Sunni Arab lands – it also targets Israel in this jihad. Many of the region’s militias have been trained, equipped, and supported by a religiously motivated Iran. While not all are fully subservient to Teheran’s preferences, they act in unison against Israel and Western interests. Iran and its proxies are the main challengers to the status quo and are actively threatening the national security of Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan and Israel. Recently, Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, was added to the list of threatened states.
The Gaza war also mirrors the main struggle in the international system against American predominance that is conducted primarily by the quartet of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The war in Ukraine has strengthened this alliance. For years, Iran has conducted a multi-front war against Israel, an American ally, and the only state that has the power to oppose its aspirations in its campaign to drive the U.S. out of region. The quartet shares this aim.
In the absence of the capability to defeat Israel on the battlefield, Hamas implements the Iranian inspired strategy that targets the civilian population of Israel hoping that it will leave under duress. The premeditated atrocities perpetrated and filmed on October 7, 2023, were intended to terrorize Israeli citizens, in the same way as the missile attacks that rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel had no choice but to counterattack and to its dismay it discovered global sympathy for Gazans (an overwhelming majority of whom have shown support for Hamas and the evil it committed on October 7), accompanied by a huge wave of antisemitic acts and statements. Europeans initially expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself, but much of their behaviour (including their voting record at the United Nations) undermined Israel’s quest to destroy completely the military capability of Hamas and the efforts to increase pressure on the organization to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. Moreover, several European states recognized the non-existent state of Palestine, thus rewarding the dysfunctional Palestinian national movement and Hamas’ terrorist activities.
How can Europe play a more positive role in making the Middle East more peaceful? What can the Europeans do to curb the current inclinations in the region for despotic regimes, terrorism, religious fanaticism and nuclear proliferation?
The developments in the Middle East have underscored an old truism. Outsiders have very little influence over Middle East outcomes; these are determined primarily by domestic forces and ingrained local political culture. Despite heroic efforts and vast financial investment, the U.S. has failed to create an Iraq in its image. Afghanistan was even more resistant to Western reform efforts. This should not be a surprise as British and French colonial rule for several decades also did not change the way the “natives” conducted business. Western attempts to intervene during the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Egypt ended in a similar failure. The ambitious project conducted by the EU to create a “civil society” in the Palestinian territories has only enriched academics and cunning civilian entrepreneurs with little influence over Palestinian political culture. Political engineering by outsiders is doomed to fail in the Middle East. Therefore, an active interventionist European foreign policy to move societies into a democratic track is unlikely to produce positive results. Europeans tend to forget that it took European states centuries to adopt a democratic system
Nevertheless, Europe or the EU can do more to support the pro-stability forces in the Middle East and weaken sources of instability. First, it should adopt a realpolitik lens and throw away its rose-tinted view of human nature. This is how Mideasterners view the world. They often muse over European naiveté, which is occasionally despised. Similarly, the discourse about creating trust is simply nonsense in the region’s political parlance. Trust is not a currency used in Middle East politics. The employment of force and fear are more useful.
Some of the actors in the Middle East are evil and engaging them diplomatically is rarely productive in limiting their mischief. Similarly, applying economic sanctions often has only meagre results. Iran has been subject to such sanctions for over two decades without any change in its behaviour. Europeans must overcome their reluctance to see military force as a useful tool in punishing and deterring the destabilizing actors. Calling for restraint and fearing escalation when a bad guy is being beaten is counterproductive.
This means accepting Israel’s objective of destroying Hamas military capabilities in order to give its citizens a respite from missile attacks. Moreover, trying to save an Islamist mini state that serves Iranian interests on the shores of the East Mediterranean is a strategic folly; over-sensitivity to the human cost in eliminating it makes little strategic sense. Its location near the Suez Canal, an important choke point and sea route, as well as to the gas deposits in the sea lends importance to who rules this area. The Europeans should appreciate efforts to minimize the presence on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean of Islamic radicals whose influence has already spread to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon Libya and the Sinai Peninsula.
A new European attitude towards the use of force also means an understanding for Israel’s need to launch a war against Hezbollah to allow its citizens displaced from the North to return home to a normal life. A military blow to Hezbollah may also provide an opportunity for Lebanon to free itself of Islamist influence and become a tolerant and prosperous state as it existed in the past. Moreover, it signals to Iran and its proxies that their actions carry costly consequences. Exacting pain for misbehaviour is the ABC of international relations.
The timidity of the U.S. and its European allies in dealing with the Houthis, an Iranian proxy blocking the Bab el Mandeb Strait, an international waterway, is intriguing. Forcing naval traffic to go to Europe around Africa, instead of the Suez Canal, carries financial costs and inflicts significant damage to the economy of Egypt, a pivotal pro-Western state in the Middle East. Tolerating this situation only encourages Iran to become more aggressive in its actions in the region and less fearful of Western retaliation.
Indeed, nowadays Iran is the main source of trouble in the Middle East. If Europe is serious about minimizing the dangers emanating from the Middle East, it must adopt a more confrontational posture toward the Mullahs in Teheran. This has become more urgent as Iran progresses quickly toward the bomb. Europe must support all actions, including the military option, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power whose missiles can reach the old continent as well. Everything should be done to halt a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. A nuclear multipolar Middle East would become a strategic nightmare for everybody in the region and its vicinity. An Iranian nuclear umbrella for Tehran’s proxies would further embolden them. The U.S., which is geographically far away from Iran and thus has a lower threat perception needs a more energetic Europe, particularly on this matter.
Europe must realize that constraining the activities of radical Islamists does not amount to Islamophobia. For example, the absurd distinction between the political and the military arm of Hamas is still accepted by some European governments. The radical anti-Western ideology of Hamas is inextricably intertwined with its violent modus operandi. Europe should outlaw Hamas in all its forms, forbid its fundraising activities and pursue all its supporters on the continent. This of course also holds true for Hezbollah. This should not be construed as a pro-Israeli policy, but a policy that strengthens moderate Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Jordan. They all abhor the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and its offshoots such as Hamas in Palestine, as well as Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and a large part of his Justice and Development (AK) party. They are all concerned about the freedom enjoyed by the followers of this movement in Europe. The MB is a larger danger for the Arab states than for Israel. Europe should be critical of Qatar, which plays a unique role in destabilizing the Middle East by funding the MB, while its Al Jazeera media network is the MB’s mouthpiece in instigating against Arab regimes. Turkey, which hosts Hamas on its soil and spreads the MB message in Europe and elsewhere deserves similar critical treatment.
Europe should announce its full support for Israel with all its means if the Jewish State is attacked by a terrorist organization. Such a statement amounts to strategic and moral clarity. Europe’s human rights nitpicking for violations during warfare in Gaza are a result of ignorance of what a modern battlefield looks like and the unprecedented efforts by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to limit the loss of civilian lives.
Europe should also overcome its obsession with the two-state solution. As noted, the Palestinians have failed miserably to meet the Weberian test of statehood – monopoly over the use of force. They established weak, corrupt and fragmented polities. The Palestinian political trajectory leads towards a civil war waged by a variety of militias, similar to other Arab states, or to a Hamas dominated entity. Moreover, all polls show that the Palestinians are still far from relinquishing their revisionist dreams and becoming peaceful neighbours of the Jewish state. The Palestinians’ real problem is not where the border between the Palestinian state and the State of Israel lies, but the very fact that there is such a border, because so many believe that there is no legitimacy for a Jewish nation-state in the Middle East. Pushing for Palestinian statehood at this stage will only increase the chances for a deadly Israeli-Palestinian war in which both sides will suffer, but the Palestinian pain for sure will be greater. The status quo – not ideal – is probably the less destructive alternative.
A peaceful Middle East is not on the cards soon. Limiting the power of the bad guys is a realistic objective, however. In addition to a more astute American foreign policy, a coherent and realistic EU strategy toward the Middle East could be a contribution in attaining such a goal.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
Photo: IMAGO / Le Pictorium / Nicolas Landemard
may interest you
The Threat of Hezbollah’s Alliance with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Africa
Hezbollah’s Expanding Threat in Africa: A Looming Challenge for Israel and the U.S.
The Northern Campaign and Iran
Israel needs to strike the Shiite periphery from which Hezbollah recruits its fighters
What many Westerners don’t get about the Gaza war
As Tensions Escalate in the North, Israel’s Hellenic Alignment Becomes Ever More Important
Four Options in Lebanon: Israel Approaches a Crucial Decision Point
No Technology Can Substitute for an IDF Presence on the Gaza-Egyptian Border
Professor Efraim Inbar
Professor Inbar is director of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS). He was the founding director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, a position he held for 23 years (1993-2016), and a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University. He has been a visiting professor at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and Boston universities; a visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; a Manfred Warner NATO Fellow; and a visiting fellow at the (London-based) International Institute for Strategic Studies. He was president of the Israel Association of International Studies; a member of the Political Strategic Committee of the National Planning Council; chairman of the National Security Curriculum committee in the Ministry of Education; and a member of the Academic Committee of the IDF History Department. He has authored five books: Outcast Countries in the World Community (1985), War and Peace in Israeli Politics. Labor Party Positions on National Security (1991), Rabin and Israel’s National Security (1999), The Israeli-Turkish Entente (2001), and Israel's National Security: Issues and Challenges since the Yom Kippur War (2008), and edited fourteen collections of scholarly articles. He is an expert on Israeli strategic doctrine, public opinion on national security issues, US Middle East policy, Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, and Israel-Turkey relations.
Inbar holds a M.A and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, after finishing undergraduate studies in Political Science and English Literature at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Recent publications
JISS briefing on Israel After a Year of War – Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror
Israel Must Stand Firm on the Battlefield and Also the Hostage Negotiation Table
Efraim Inbar: ‘Israel doesn’t use enough force’
By signing up, you agree to our user agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), our privacy policy and cookie statement, and to receive marketing and billing emails from jiss. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Sign up for the newsletter
For up-to-date analysis and commentary.