I do not think I am alone among those following events in Gaza to deplore the lack of action of the European Union, thinly camouflaged by a series of weak statements by its leaders. The weak wording and routine rhetoric of the statement made by President Manuel Barroso and President Herman Van Rompuy in the name of the European Union on 3 August 2014, betray lack of authority and a willingness to stay on the fence, leaving to others the task to mediate a ceasefire, while Israel and Hamas battle it out. Europe's leaders expect us to applaud them because they have “joined their voices” to those of the Secretary General of the United Nations and other international leaders in condemning the violence and calling on both sides to put an end to their hostilities. I bet that neither Benjamin Netanyahu nor Khaled Meshaal bothered to read the statement.
The EU Foreign Affairs Ministers discussed the Israeli-Hamas conflict on 22 July 2014, during their scheduled monthly meeting, before breaking up for their August vacation, and again during an emergency meeting on 15 August. On both occasions the situation in Gaza was not the main topic on their agenda. The 22 July meeting was overshadowed by the discussion on how to deal with Russia following the downing of the Malaysian Airlines MH17. The emergency meeting of 15 August was called because of the escalating threat from the jihadist Islamic State in Iraq and because of Russia's continuing support for the insurgency in Eastern Ukraine, not because of Gaza. In between these two meetings the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Lady Catherine Ashton, issued a few face-saving statements, whenever world opinion cried “foul” such as on the shelling of the UNRWA school and marketplace in Gaza.
The Council conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process adopted by the Foreign Affairs Ministers on 22 July and 15 August reveal an astonishing lack of urgency on the part of the European Union to do what is necessary to stop the violence in Gaza and to re-launch the peace process. In the eyes of many observers, the Union may not have walked away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it certainly continues to play a secondary and unproductive role. This is the result of internal divisions among the member states, many of whom continue to put their bilateral relations with Israel above their commitment to a resolution of the conflict. It is also the result of an excessive deference to the position of the United States, based on the convenient argument that only the United States can exercise leverage on Israel. It is, above all, the result of political cowardice on the part of a European Union unwilling to take risks and happy to pay the bills of Israel's repeated destruction of the Palestinian economy and infrastructure.
During the meeting of 15 August, Malta's Foreign Minister called on the European Union to play a more robust role in seeking a comprehensive and sustainable solution to the conflict, whilst building on lessons learnt from recent efforts. He is right. The European Union's strategy for the Middle East Peace Process needs to become more robust, involving the full use of the Union's economic and political muscles whenever necessary. Moreover, the current situation in Gaza and the other Palestinian territories occupied by Israel clearly suggests that the European Union's strategy towards a resolution of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict has been ineffective and mistaken. Radical re-thinking to take account of political realities is necessary.
One of the pillars of the European Union's strategy is based on the false belief that Israel will behave more reasonably if indulged. Israel has managed to benefit considerably from this EU strategy without making the slightest concession on the core issues, of borders, settlements, East Jerusalem and the return of refugees. Building upon previous contractual arrangements, Israel concluded an Association Agreement with the European Union in June 2000, which provides for the most comprehensive cooperation that is possible between the EU and a non-member country. It has achieved a solid trade and investment relationship with the Union, with trade in goods and services reaching nearly 40 billion Euros and foreign direct investment 37 billion Euros in 2012. Israel is the only non European partner in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
The other pillar of the European Union’s Middle East strategy is based on its frequently stated commitment to a two-state solution. As part of this strategy, it has established contractual bilateral relations with the Palestinians as far back as 1997, with the conclusion of an Interim Agreement on Trade and Cooperation. Through this agreement the Union sought to develop trade relations directly with the Occupied Territories by granting duty free access to the European market for Palestinian industrial products. In January 2012, it also granted concessions to Palestinian agricultural and fisheries products. This strategy gave very limited results. The EU has clearly underestimated the effects of Israel’s restrictions on movement and access and its determination to prevent the development of a viable Palestinian economy.
Furthermore, as from 2005 the European Union included the Occupied Territories in its European Neighbourhood Policy and adopted an Action Plan focused primarily on supporting the Palestinian Authority's state-building efforts. A new Action Plan, adopted in 2013, consolidated this EU approach by seeking to develop closer political association with the Palestinian Authority and by approving more extensive institution-building projects. The Union has become the major and most predictable donor of funds and technical assistance to the Palestinians, and has enabled the Palestinian Authority to achieve some successes in institution-building and the delivery of public services.
The European Union's efforts to act on its commitment to a future Palestinian state by supporting state-building projects are to be recommended. However, they will lead nowhere if Israel continues to have a free hand to destroy whatever the Union and the international community attempt to build. Not only the physical infrastructure is being destroyed in Gaza and elsewhere, but the institution-building efforts of the Ramallah government are being repeatedly undermined by constant Israeli harassment and humiliation and by Israel’s settlements expansion. There are by now some 600,000 Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Israel shows no sign of reversing its strategy of making a Palestinian state a physical impossibility.
To exert some pressure on Israel the European Union has adopted a policy of “differentiation” by which it differentiates between Israel proper and Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. The latest example of this policy occurred earlier this year when Israel was invited to join the research programme Horizon 2020 on condition that no funds would go to Israeli academic institutions in the occupied West Bank. . This policy is irking Israel, but gives the Union far from sufficient leverage to make Israel change its settlements strategy.
If the EU wishes to respond effectively to the criticism that it is a “payer not a player” in the Middle East Peace Process, it needs to revise its strategy radically and adopt a more proactive political role. The new strategy should recognize the political realities in the United States which are inhibiting the latter from exercising any effective leverage on Israel and from acting as an honest broker between Israel and Palestine. This implies doing what the United States is unwilling to do: talk to Hamas, preferably with the support of the United Nations, and call their bluff by offering something serious in exchange for their recognition of Israel and renunciation of their armed struggle.
Above all, if the European Union really wants to change the status quo, it should seek to promote and coordinate international pressure on Israel to make it abide by the accepted principle of “land for peace” and engage seriously in negotiations leading to the creation of a Palestinian state.