The approval at the UN Security Council of the new resolution on Gaza marks a change of pace in international diplomacy after two years of stalemate. It is not a decisive text, but it nevertheless represents a political moment: the United States returns to lead the process, the Arab countries obtain references to Palestinian self-determination, China and Russia do not exercise their veto and allow the compromise to pass. Europe, on the other hand, remains on the sidelines. The Gaza crisis – like the Ukraine crisis – lays bare the Union’s difficulty in producing an autonomous vision and translating its economic weight into influence. Even with France sitting on the Security Council, the EU has not been able to give a direction to the negotiations or to present itself as a credible actor. From New York comes a clear message to the Twenty-Seven: without initiative and leadership, the Union remains a mere spectator.

The new UN vote on Gaza

On 18 November, the Security Council approved, with 13 votes in favour and only China and Russia abstaining, the resolution accepting the peace plan promoted by Donald Trump. A compromise built on delicate balances: the Arab states obtain a reference, albeit vague, to Palestinian self-determination; the United States assumes the political and operational direction of the process; the abstainers choose not to block a fragile but necessary truce.

The resolution envisages an international stabilisation force, a gradual Israeli withdrawal, the resumption of aid, and a conditional path of reforms for future Palestinian governance. Central to this is the creation of the Board of Peace, chaired by Trump and endowed with international legal personality: a transitional body that will have wide-ranging competences – from administrative management to security, to overseeing reconstruction. An unprecedented structure that concentrates significant powers outside the traditional multilateral mechanisms.

Even more remarkable, in the context of European marginality, is the decision to entrust the financial aspects to global economic institutions. Indeed, reconstruction and assistance flows will be coordinated by a World Bank trust fund and third-party international bodies. Unlike the Ukrainian case, where the EU was called upon to mobilise immediate and substantial resources, in the Gaza dossier Brussels is not even considered a key economic actor. A clear signal on how the international community distributes responsibilities and roles today.

The absent Union

In the run-up to the resolution, the European voice remained weak. It did not steer the text or put forward proposals capable of influencing the mediation. Not even the presence of France in the Security Council was enough to give the EU a recognisable role or to compensate for the absence of a common strategy.

On the operational level, the gap is even more stark: the EU has not led aid initiatives, proposed mechanisms to protect civilians, or exerted significant pressure on respect for humanitarian law. Faced with thousands of Palestinian victims, it has not developed proportionate diplomatic or economic measures. And, in the area of sanctions, the disparity with the speed shown towards Moscow is obvious.

Gaza thus becomes an emblematic case. After Ukraine, where the Union has invested a lot but without an autonomous diplomatic line, the Middle East also confirms that the EU struggles to influence global balances. It neither mediates, nor leads, nor guarantees. It remains a side actor.

Political responsibility

The causes are well known: internal divisions, decision-making constraints, limited instruments. But today the main limitation seems to be leadership. Ursula von der Leyen seems more focused on managing her own political continuity than on defining an international strategy capable of giving the Union a distinct role. The Commission has reflexively followed the US line, while the Twenty-Seven have avoided any choice with an internal political cost, effectively renouncing any joint action.

From New York, however, comes an unequivocal warning: global diplomacy rewards those who act, not those who observe. The UN, albeit amidst ambiguities, has succeeded in unblocking a process that has been at a standstill for months, and the risk, now evident, is that the world will move towards a new order while Europe is simply no longer there.

Read also: The Russian move, the Trump plan and the Gaza game: increasingly fragile balances at the UN, by Vincenzo D’Arienzo