This blog is part of EU-LISTCO, an innovative and timely project that investigates the challenges facing Europe’s foreign policy. A consortium of fourteen leading research institutions and universities aims to identify risks connected to areas of limited statehood and contested orders—and the EU’s ability to respond.
***
In the past two decades, the EU has resorted to sticks and carrots to promote its dual-purpose policy of peacemaking and state building in the Middle East, by fostering a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as democracy and good governance. The EU’s spectacular failure on both fronts demonstrates the limited influence the union has in the region. Why does such a major international player find it difficult to get its act together when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The EU’s peacemaking failure—its inability to press Israel to act in accordance with the two-state solution—is driven by two more dominant EU policies: deference to U.S. leadership and a strong aversion to the serious use of leverage against Israel.
The EU is more comfortable allowing the United States to lead on making peace between Palestine and Israel. Despite challenges to the U.S. role in international politics from China, Russia, and others, the structure of the international system remains predominantly unipolar. Moreover, most EU countries are members of NATO. Europe defers to the United States on security and for the foreseeable future will do little or nothing to compete with Washington’s peacemaking efforts.
Even when the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump indicates no interest in leading the international order, or takes measures that irreversibly damage Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking, such as endorsing a partial annexation of the occupied West Bank, Europe remains paralyzed.
Europe is also unwilling to use leverage such as sanctions against Israel for violating international law, for example by building settlements in the occupied territories and thereby destroying the viability of the two-state solution. The EU has repeatedly insisted that all settlement activity is illegal under international law, endangers the two-state solution, and undermines the prospects for a lasting peace. Yet, it is abundantly clear that the EU will not punish Israel or deny it the benefits the union offers its friends.
Indeed, any EU threat to use the stick in retaliation for such activity, unlikely as it seems, would anyway be doomed to failure under present conditions because it would lack credibility. Irrespective of its behavior, Israel continues to benefit from its relations with the EU, despite the conditionality attached to those relations.
In fact, some European countries are willing to label those who call for sanctions anti-Semitic. Nothing exemplifies this tendency more clearly than the May 2019 resolution by the German Bundestag to equate the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, a Palestinian-led campaign that promotes boycotts against Israel, with anti-Semitism.
As for the EU’s state-building failure—its inability to press the current Palestinian elite, who enjoy power because of EU political and financial support, to act in accordance with democracy and the rule of law—it is driven by a hierarchy of priorities that places peacemaking first. This is despite the fact that the EU’s so-called rhetoric about peacemaking has yielded no results. The EU’s policies are also driven by a fear of Islamism and a strong attachment to stability, particularly after the Arab Spring uprisings that began in late 2010.
With little or no attention from the international community, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has become bolder in ignoring its own constitution and the rule of law while seeking to strengthen the power of the presidency and the executive and weaken all opposition, including civil society.
In the last decade, the PA has taken several measures that have severely undermined good governance in four areas: the independence of the judiciary, the separation of power, the independence and pluralism of civil society, and the media and freedom of expression. With no Palestinian general elections since 2006, the impact of these measures on PA institution building and governance has been destructive: the rule of law has been sacrificed, the judiciary has been considerably weakened and its independence damaged, media freedoms have been highly curtailed, and civil society has lost its pluralism and much of its independence from the government.
Over time, the EU has become much less interested in Palestinian good governance. Diplomats in Jerusalem are seriously concerned about the prospects of a return to Islamism or chaos after the Arab Spring, and an extraordinary focus on stability is replacing the traditional agenda of democracy and good governance. Moreover, given the EU’s failure to take effective measures against Israel’s settlement policy, the union is reluctant to press the PA, which remains committed to the two-state solution, on domestic issues.
The EU commitment to the two-state solution in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is solid and long-standing. Similarly, the union’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law is unquestionable. In April 2019, high-ranking former European politicians urged the EU to stand by the two-state solution and reject any U.S. Middle East peace plan that deviates from it. These former politicians, the same officials who were responsible for setting the policies that led to the current reality, are now questioning those policies by calling for a European challenge to the U.S. peacemaking role.
The call, wise as it might be, is simply unrealistic. Instead, the EU must come to terms with the reality that its dual-purpose policy of peacemaking and state building is unachievable in the foreseeable future.
The EU has two options. It can aim at a modest outcome, preventing the status quo from deteriorating into a situation that rules out a two-state solution. Or it can embrace the current gravitation to a one-state reality, in which Israeli Jews control the land and, with it, the future of the Palestinians, who lack the capacity to determine their own fate or directly influence Israeli policies.
The first option requires considerably greater EU investment in building a Palestinian state and in developing area C of the West Bank, where Israel retains near-exclusive control, and East Jerusalem. It also needs the EU to recognize Palestinian statehood and take bolder steps in proposing terms of reference for ending the conflict.
The second and more ambitious option requires the EU to face up to the ugly reality unfolding on the ground today. The EU is vastly more ill prepared to deal with this option. If all else fails, the EU should use its current limited diplomatic and economic leverage to make itself heard: by asking Israel to choose between granting the Palestinians independence and giving them citizenship, and by asking the Palestinians to choose between embracing good governance and financing their own authoritarian state building.
Khalil Shikaki is the director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah.
Comments(4)
Israel is not inclined to commit national suicide by handing the West Bank in full to Hamas, (or Fatah) and the Iranians. After all, this disputed land is probably the most important piece of military territory in the entire world. Iran already owns Lebanon, Syria and Iraq; the West Bank could easily become a stepping stone in directions both east and west, toward Tel Aviv and Amman. Europe has lost all sense of military-geopolitical reality. Is it any wonder that Arafat could peddle his false narrative of peace to the EU? Arafat's true aim with his so-called two-state solution was an historical piecemeal retaking of all the land of the original Palestinian Mandate --that is, what is now Israel and Jordan. If you don't believe this is true, you haven't read the original PLO Charter; and you also completely misrepresent PLO strategy since the bitter aftermath of the Arab wars of 1967 and 1973. There is no binary choice between an Arab West Bank state or a one-state secular democratic solution between the river and the sea. This mere fantasy. Israel is only obligated under international law to negotiate the future of the disputed territories with existing states in the region (UN Security Council Resolution 242). This, of course, does not include the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians might call the territory of the West Bank "Palestine", but this doesn't make it so under international law. Such an act of international law would require the complete renunciation of UNSC 242 and the admittance of Palestine as a full UN member representing all the territory of the West Bank. Good luck with that diplomatic mission. However, now, and in accordance with Resolution 242, Israel is not required to give back ALL the lands it attained in the 1967 War. On the contrary, the US delegation to the UN in 1967 insisted that the word All be excluded from the document. Furthermore, it enshrined into international law Israel's right to secure borders.The best hope for peace in the lands of the original Mandate for Palestine is the necessary inclusion of Eastern Palestine, what is now euphemistically called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. NO -- I am not proposing that Jordan should be the totality of Palestinian aspirations, as I would never propose that Israel should once again become a token mini-state west of the armistice "Green Line". Shared-rule for Jerusalem and the West Bank is the only answer. I would also support a democratic outcome for all the citizens of Jordan.
ORWELL WOULD BE PROUD Under international law, Israelis are entitled to live anywhere in Judea and Samaria. There is no such thing as Palestinian land and never was. Judea and Samaria never belonged to any sovereign ruler after the British withdrew from Mandatory Palestine; before that it was part of the Ottoman empire.
Palestinians will return and stay !
Let's take a look at Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a disputed city as it is both claimed by Israel and the Palestinans as their capital. I would like to ask a few questions, Has Jerusalem ever been the capital of Israel or a former Jewish state? Yes it has. Jerusalem was once the capital of the kingdom of Israel and also the Kingdom of Judah and is currently Israel's capital. On the other hand, has Jerusalem ever been linked to the Palestinans as their capital? Sadly, no. This means that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of the state of Israel and all well respecting countries should recognize it and move their embassies there including European countries.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.