2023-10-18 17:04:19
In the aftermath of Hamas’s barbaric attacks against Israel, the European Commissioner responsible for enlargement and neighborhood policy, the Hungarian Oliver Varhelyi, announced the suspension of aid to the Palestinians. It didn’t take long to be denial by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and by several countries and MEPs. It is ultimately a ” revision “ of European aid to the Palestinians which has been decided. Furthermore, the EU has just announced an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza and the establishment of an airlift to transport it via Egypt.
This sequence illustrates how, on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the unity of the 27 remains difficult, despite the alignment of reactions of condemnation attacks committed by Hamas and affirmation of Israel’s right to defend itself. Ursula von der Leyen was also shortly after critiqued for having made a visit in support of Israel without expressing concern about the fate of the Palestinians in Gaza.
If in the past, the European Economic Community (replaced by the EU in 1993) had been able to develop consensual common positions on the matter, it seems that this is more difficult now. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the EU could influence the outcome of the conflict.
A bipolar system
The Venice declaration of 1980, on the specific subject of Palestine, was a testing ground for the “European political cooperation” launched in 1970.
The “CPE” aimed to provide the European Community with a political voice in the concert of nations. In a context marked by the two oil shocks and by the new tensions generated by the Islamic revolution in Iran, but also by the hopes born in the wake of the signing in September 1978 of the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egyptthe Nine at the time affirmed their support for the Palestinian right to self-determination.
Two years later, François Mitterrand, while displaying his attachment to the State of Israel, spoke before the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, of the prospect of a Palestinian state – a French position which subsequently became the European position.
Despite these strong statements, Europeans have had little influence in the peace process in the Middle East. There Suez crisis of 1956 had already marked the strategic ousting of France and the United Kingdom from the region, although Gaullian and post-Gaullian France subsequently continued to play an important role in the affairs of Lebanon and elsewhere in the area through her “Arab politics” (which manifested itself in particular through arms sales).
At the time of the Cold War, the bipolar system had spread to the Middle East: the United States stood alongside Israel while the USSR supported the Arab and Palestinian cause. Security Council resolutions, including the famous resolution 242 of 1967, which demanded the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, nevertheless marked a consensus of the powers on the need to return to the partition of Palestine planned in 1948-1949. In 1980, the same Security Council, through its resolution 478refused to recognize Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem.
It was under the aegis of the Big Two – and above all the United States, the Soviet Union being moribund at the time – that the peace process was really launched, Madrid Conference in 1991. The Europeans made a place for themselves in this complex and hesitant process with the appointment of a special representative from 1996 (the Spaniard Miguel Moratinos was the first holder of the position, currently held by the Dutch Sven Kotmans) and the establishment in 2002 of « quartet » (US, Russia, EU, UN) to mediate the conflict.
Europe in support
The Europeans came to support the peace accords, financing the Palestinian Authority and launching a assistance mission at the Rafah border postbetween Egypt and the Gaza Strip evacuated by Israel in 2005. The fact remains that, in the face of a conflict which has continued to harden (Benyamin Netanyahu’s first coming to power in 1996, second intifada between 2000 and 2006, war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, strengthening of Jewish colonization in occupied territories, series of attacks and reprisals), they struggled to make themselves heard collectively.
It is not that European countries are condemned to impotence: they have been able to take united and resolute action on the Iranian nuclear issue from 2003, combining sanctions and diplomacy. Elements of consensus between European countries exist on civil aid to the Palestinians, support for the peace process, opposition to the policy of force and fait accompli, including the colonization of the occupied territories. Europeans have not always remained passive towards Israel. The Association Council, provided for by the 1995 association agreement which organizes cooperation between the Union and Israel, did not meet between 2012 and 2022, the Israelis reacting to objections made by the Union regarding settlements in the West Bank. The free trade agreement does not apply to Israeli products from settlements.
However, Member States have never agreed on any sanctions. They just decided in 2019 to label (and not ban) Israeli products from the occupied territories, after Israel proclaimed itself by a fundamental law “the nation-state of the Jewish people”, which discriminates against non-Jewish citizens, particularly the Arab minority. Commercial and technological relations with the Jewish state remain close. Israel is notably associated with the Union’s research programs.
Too big differences?
Despite the few points of agreement, the Member States (and the former Member State which is the United Kingdom) have very (too?) different visions of the Israeli-Palestinian question to be able to be more effective.
Historically, the United Kingdom and the France encouraged since 1917 the rebirth of a Jewish national home in the ancestral land of Israel. If London subsequently generally remained very close to Israeli positions, this was not the case for Paris, which took care to manage its relations with the Arab world and defend the rights of the Palestinians. Germany and Austria, for their part, bear the stigma of the elimination of Jewish communities by the Nazis and are more inclined to align themselves with Israel’s positions. This is also the case for the Netherlands, one of the cradles of Western liberalism, and a number of countries in central and eastern Europe. Spain, for its part, has often had a position close to France, a position which has been relayed by Spanish personalities having been placed in key positions in European diplomacy – Javier Solana and Miguel Moratinos in the past, Josep Borrell today.
In reality, none of the European countries is powerful enough to establish itself as a major player; but together they are too divided. Their voice can only be weak, especially when it comes to going against Washington’s positions.
If the EU is used to adopting a common position on the texts of the United Nations General Assembly (in more than 90% of cases), divisions reappear as soon as the issues become sensitive. This is how the votes of Member States were divided on the UN reaction to the Israeli offensive in Gaza in 2008-2009, on the admission of Palestine to UNESCO in 2011, then on the granting observer status to Palestine at the UN in 2012. In the latter case, 14 countries (including France) voted for, the Czech Republic voted against, 12 countries abstained, including Germany and the United Kingdom. Some European countries, such as Hungary and the Czechiaare now tempted to transfer their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as the Trump administration did in 2018.
Furthermore, a right-wing (“illiberal”) axis has continued to strengthen in Israel as in the West, combining an identity and nationalist push, the rhetoric of the “war against Islamist terrorism” and the logic of all-security, to the detriment of a political analysis of the conflict. In this light, it is not surprising to see Viktor Orban, Georgia Meloni or Marine Le Pen fully align with the security policy of the Netanyahu government.
Can the EU do more?
Could Europe get more involved? The legitimacy of European institutions to carry strong diplomacy over member states is fragile. If we introduced majority voting in foreign policy, then this is currently defined unanimously, this would perhaps facilitate compromise positions; but would they be accepted by all and could they support autonomous and strong actions that would not necessarily be aligned with the United States?
At this stage, coordinated action by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as in the Iranian issue, does not appear to be in sight either. The Israeli-Palestinian issue unfortunately shows the limits of European power.
1697678850
#unobtainable #policy #unobtainable #peace