- Home
- About
- General Issues
- Maps
-
Position Statements
- 2011 >
-
2012
>
- Time to Negotiate the Northern and Southern Sectors of the Israeli-West Bank Border
- President Peres and Dr. Ashrawi: Thank You for Staying on Track
- Playing the Victim Card Will Not Bring Peace
- Negotiations By the Parties
- The World Should Help the Palestinian Hunger Striker
- ...and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem
- A Question of Accountability
- Israel Twisting in the Wind
- Netanyahu: Too Big for His Britches
- Netanyahu's "Israeli Comfort"
- How Shaul Mofaz Can Jump-Start the Peace Process
- Netanyahu on the Brink
- Time for Taking Stock
- Israel in Wonderland
- Whatever Happened to the Quartet?
- The Palestinians Want to Negotiate
- A Time for Hope and a Call for Restraint
- Israel Can Win in Gaza, But Not Now
- Congratulations to the New State of Palestine!
- Security and Borders: Both Required for Peace
-
2013
>
- It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations
- Israel and Palestine: Changing the Terms of Agreement
- The Knesset Bill to Increase the Number of Women that Elect the Chief Rabbis Is Important for Jewish Women
- Proposal on Governance of the Holy Basin
- Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle
- Tzipi Livni's Challenge
- Women Should Be Free to Pray at the Wailing Wall
- Proposed Highway through the Jordan Valley Will Backfire on Israel
- 2014 >
-
2015
>
- We Should Applaud Herzog and Livni for Reclaiming Zionism
- The Next Israeli Government
- West Bank Citizenry and Receipt of Individuals of Palestinian Origin
- What Next for Israel?
- Palestinian statehood
- Mischief in the Trade Legislation would Hinder Progress
- What Next for America?
- Could American Firms Choose to Gradually Disinvest from Israel?
- Boycotting Israel is not anti-Semitism
- 2016 >
- 2017 >
- 2019 >
- 2020 >
- 2023 >
- 2024
- Resources
- About the Authors
Israel's Tussle with Europe
December 26, 2011
The past week has seen an unusually sharp exchange between Israel and Europe over Israel’s move to expand settlement construction in the teeth of a faltering peace process. We fear that if Israel does not take European sentiments seriously and recognize its responsibility to work constructively with the international community for peace, this dispute could escalate into a serious confrontation in coming months.
In a statement on December 20, the European members of the UN Security Council—the UK, France, Germany and Portugal—called on Israel to reverse its recent steps to expand the settlements: “The viability of the Palestinian state that we want to see and the two-state solution that is essential for Israel’s long-term security are threatened by the systematic and deliberate expansion of settlements.”
The government of Israel reacted angrily. Its foreign ministry called the statement “interfering with Israel’s domestic affairs,” and warned that Israel might turn away from the Europeans’ good offices, since the statement “does not enhance the status they [the European nations] wish to be granted.” The U.S. joined Israel in rebuking Europe; with State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland observing that “shouting from the rooftops of the Security Council is not going to change the situation on the ground.”
The Palestinian Authority’s greatest diplomatic gain in recent months has been to garner widespread acknowledgement throughout the world community, and Europe especially, of its narrative of oppression. This achievement comes not only as a result of its efforts for recognition at the United Nations. It is also the fruit of a society that has embraced the ethic of non-violent passive resistance in the face of Israeli insults, including “price-tag” vandalism and the often violent occupation policies of the IDF, while working diligently to build up the economy and infrastructure of the West Bank through the technocratic leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The Palestinians’ responsible behavior in the face of adversity has made them well regarded in the international community and has dispelled their earlier reputation for terrorism.
Moreover, the UN gambit has focused the world’s attention, as it has not been for many years, on restarting the peace process. The Europeans are engaged as a leading force in the Quartet (the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN) not only for motives of self-interest but as a moral imperative. The British in particular want to finally attain a peaceful division between Jews and Arabs of its former Mandate territory, which has been a goal of its foreign policy stretching back over 100 years. Moreover, Europe’s attachment to the ideal of peace in the Christian holy land cannot be gainsaid.
For these reasons, Israel’s rebuke that the Europeans are “interfering in their domestic affairs” rings hollow. Moreover, such language, calling settlement construction in what may become the territory of the future Palestinian state “domestic,” is a challenge to the peace process itself. Israel cannot expect Europe to stand down.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians say they are looking for demonstrations of good faith by Israel, as Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat remarked according to the Jerusalem Post of December 12: “Tell us if there is a sign of life. To us, failure is not an option. I cannot go again and sit with my Israeli colleagues and fail. It is too dangerous.” This Palestinian avowal of sincerity plays well in Europe.
In a previous post, I suggested that Israel would do well to show good faith by a settlement “lull.” Yet a lull is only one of many possibilities. For example, as Europe is suggesting, Israel could clamp down on the “price tag” vandals, arrest them and mete out stern justice: “We… call on the Israeli government to fulfill its commitment to bring the perpetrators to justice and to put an end to impunity.” Or, Israel could enact new laws to protect the social and political rights of its Arab minority. Any such demonstration of good faith would bring forward momentum to the peace process, and would be well received by the Europeans.
Better still, one would have hoped for some curtailment of settlement activity. Even if it fell short a full settlement freeze as demanded by the Palestinians, it could be enough to show good faith to the Europeans, who would then put the onus on the Palestinians to accept it as a basis to sit down at the negotiating table.
Instead, on December 19, Israel announced the approval of even more settlement construction: 1,028 homes, including 180 new homes in Givat Ze’ev, a settlement which lies closer to Ramallah than to Jerusalem. An aide to German Chancellor Merkel called it “a devastating message with regard to the current efforts to resume peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” according to the AP. This is in addition to previous announcements in August and September of thousands of new housing units in Gilo, Har Homa and other suburbs of Jerusalem.
Israel seems to be choosing a course of confrontation. There could be several reasons for this. Perhaps Israel is using settlement construction to bludgeon the Palestinians to drop its demand of a settlement freeze as a precondition to negotiations by showing them the cost of delay. Perhaps Netanyahu calculates that for his political survival he needs to cater to the settler movement. Or maybe his protestations of wanting a two-state solution are insincere, and in fact he prefers to scuttle the peace process altogether.
What, then, are the Europeans, who sincerely want peace, to do? I expect them to push Israel harder. If Israel continues to escalate its settlement activity, they might even be inclined to undertake punitive measures.
Nevertheless, the leaders of Europe need to be mindful that Israelis have reasons to resent their “advice.” For many Jews, the memory of the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism disqualifies Europe from having any moral authority to speak to them, even though they forget that Israel’s very existence would not have happened without Europe’s support. Israelis are also well aware that Europe has always curried favor with the Arabs due to its dependence on Arab oil. In addition, Israelis can accuse Europe of naïveté, because they do not live in the rough neighborhood that is the Middle East. Hence, however well intended the Europeans may be, Israelis tend to interpret their pressure as hostility.
I therefore encourage the Europeans to take a more even-handed approach, with policies that support Israel even as they push hard to curb settlements. For example, they can lean on the Palestinians to solve one of the greatest sources of Israeli insecurity: the future role of Hamas in a Palestinian unity government.
Hamas seems to be saying the right things. Fatah official Mohammad Shtayyeh is reported by CNN to have stated that Hamas had accepted the Palestinian Authority position of passive resistance to Israeli occupation, agreed on a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, and said it would accept talks with Israel if the Quartet could create a “conducive and appropriate environment for negotiations.” Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, reportedly has signaled his acceptance of these positions, which will be laid out in a forthcoming political agreement.
Yet Israel’s distrust of Hamas is well-founded. Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. Hamas has not formally disavowed its goal of Israel’s complete destruction. Most Jews believe that any accommodation with Israel is merely a hudna (truce) to gain a tactical advantage before resuming hostilities. Once Hamas joins with Fatah in a unity government, the entire Palestinian project becomes tainted. We then can expect Israel to declare that they no longer have a Palestinian partner.
What can the Europeans do about this, to demonstrate an understanding of Israel’s predicament? For one thing, the Europeans should use their influence to move Hamas to amend its founding charter and officially repudiate its stated goal of Israel’s destruction. They should put the Palestinians on notice that only with a changed Hamas can the proposed unity government be considered as an acceptable partner for peace.
Israel, for its part, needs to recognize that Europe’s concerns are also well-founded. Instead of reacting with a quick retort, it should understand the anxiety and frustration that its policy of unconstrained settlement expansion is causing Europe, which believes that a peace agreement is actually within reach. It needs to recognize that expanding its settlements is incompatible with arriving at a viable two-state solution. Even if undertaken for tactical reasons, expanding the settlements creates facts on the ground damaging to the viability of a future Palestinian state. A viable state needs territorial contiguity, but that would be impossible if fingers of settlements and their access roads were to cut deep into Palestine.
Furthermore, the Europeans are correct when they state that a viable Palestinian state and a two-state solution are “essential for Israel’s long-term security.” Peace with its nearest Arab neighbor, Palestine, will free Israeli resources to focus on the much more serious threat to its existence posed by Iran. It will also take the air out of the anti-Israeli sentiment throughout the Arab world that has blocked normalizing relations. These will be real security gains, with only the limited downside of occasional terrorist acts that could be foiled by Israeli-Palestinian cooperation on security. Israel should recognize that Europe, in seeking a negotiated peace, does not oppose its long-term interests.
Europe’s push on the matter of settlements is the admonishment of a friend. Israel would do well to listen. Otherwise, we could witness a serious deterioration in relations. That would be a shame.
_
The past week has seen an unusually sharp exchange between Israel and Europe over Israel’s move to expand settlement construction in the teeth of a faltering peace process. We fear that if Israel does not take European sentiments seriously and recognize its responsibility to work constructively with the international community for peace, this dispute could escalate into a serious confrontation in coming months.
In a statement on December 20, the European members of the UN Security Council—the UK, France, Germany and Portugal—called on Israel to reverse its recent steps to expand the settlements: “The viability of the Palestinian state that we want to see and the two-state solution that is essential for Israel’s long-term security are threatened by the systematic and deliberate expansion of settlements.”
The government of Israel reacted angrily. Its foreign ministry called the statement “interfering with Israel’s domestic affairs,” and warned that Israel might turn away from the Europeans’ good offices, since the statement “does not enhance the status they [the European nations] wish to be granted.” The U.S. joined Israel in rebuking Europe; with State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland observing that “shouting from the rooftops of the Security Council is not going to change the situation on the ground.”
The Palestinian Authority’s greatest diplomatic gain in recent months has been to garner widespread acknowledgement throughout the world community, and Europe especially, of its narrative of oppression. This achievement comes not only as a result of its efforts for recognition at the United Nations. It is also the fruit of a society that has embraced the ethic of non-violent passive resistance in the face of Israeli insults, including “price-tag” vandalism and the often violent occupation policies of the IDF, while working diligently to build up the economy and infrastructure of the West Bank through the technocratic leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The Palestinians’ responsible behavior in the face of adversity has made them well regarded in the international community and has dispelled their earlier reputation for terrorism.
Moreover, the UN gambit has focused the world’s attention, as it has not been for many years, on restarting the peace process. The Europeans are engaged as a leading force in the Quartet (the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN) not only for motives of self-interest but as a moral imperative. The British in particular want to finally attain a peaceful division between Jews and Arabs of its former Mandate territory, which has been a goal of its foreign policy stretching back over 100 years. Moreover, Europe’s attachment to the ideal of peace in the Christian holy land cannot be gainsaid.
For these reasons, Israel’s rebuke that the Europeans are “interfering in their domestic affairs” rings hollow. Moreover, such language, calling settlement construction in what may become the territory of the future Palestinian state “domestic,” is a challenge to the peace process itself. Israel cannot expect Europe to stand down.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians say they are looking for demonstrations of good faith by Israel, as Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat remarked according to the Jerusalem Post of December 12: “Tell us if there is a sign of life. To us, failure is not an option. I cannot go again and sit with my Israeli colleagues and fail. It is too dangerous.” This Palestinian avowal of sincerity plays well in Europe.
In a previous post, I suggested that Israel would do well to show good faith by a settlement “lull.” Yet a lull is only one of many possibilities. For example, as Europe is suggesting, Israel could clamp down on the “price tag” vandals, arrest them and mete out stern justice: “We… call on the Israeli government to fulfill its commitment to bring the perpetrators to justice and to put an end to impunity.” Or, Israel could enact new laws to protect the social and political rights of its Arab minority. Any such demonstration of good faith would bring forward momentum to the peace process, and would be well received by the Europeans.
Better still, one would have hoped for some curtailment of settlement activity. Even if it fell short a full settlement freeze as demanded by the Palestinians, it could be enough to show good faith to the Europeans, who would then put the onus on the Palestinians to accept it as a basis to sit down at the negotiating table.
Instead, on December 19, Israel announced the approval of even more settlement construction: 1,028 homes, including 180 new homes in Givat Ze’ev, a settlement which lies closer to Ramallah than to Jerusalem. An aide to German Chancellor Merkel called it “a devastating message with regard to the current efforts to resume peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” according to the AP. This is in addition to previous announcements in August and September of thousands of new housing units in Gilo, Har Homa and other suburbs of Jerusalem.
Israel seems to be choosing a course of confrontation. There could be several reasons for this. Perhaps Israel is using settlement construction to bludgeon the Palestinians to drop its demand of a settlement freeze as a precondition to negotiations by showing them the cost of delay. Perhaps Netanyahu calculates that for his political survival he needs to cater to the settler movement. Or maybe his protestations of wanting a two-state solution are insincere, and in fact he prefers to scuttle the peace process altogether.
What, then, are the Europeans, who sincerely want peace, to do? I expect them to push Israel harder. If Israel continues to escalate its settlement activity, they might even be inclined to undertake punitive measures.
Nevertheless, the leaders of Europe need to be mindful that Israelis have reasons to resent their “advice.” For many Jews, the memory of the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism disqualifies Europe from having any moral authority to speak to them, even though they forget that Israel’s very existence would not have happened without Europe’s support. Israelis are also well aware that Europe has always curried favor with the Arabs due to its dependence on Arab oil. In addition, Israelis can accuse Europe of naïveté, because they do not live in the rough neighborhood that is the Middle East. Hence, however well intended the Europeans may be, Israelis tend to interpret their pressure as hostility.
I therefore encourage the Europeans to take a more even-handed approach, with policies that support Israel even as they push hard to curb settlements. For example, they can lean on the Palestinians to solve one of the greatest sources of Israeli insecurity: the future role of Hamas in a Palestinian unity government.
Hamas seems to be saying the right things. Fatah official Mohammad Shtayyeh is reported by CNN to have stated that Hamas had accepted the Palestinian Authority position of passive resistance to Israeli occupation, agreed on a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, and said it would accept talks with Israel if the Quartet could create a “conducive and appropriate environment for negotiations.” Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, reportedly has signaled his acceptance of these positions, which will be laid out in a forthcoming political agreement.
Yet Israel’s distrust of Hamas is well-founded. Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. Hamas has not formally disavowed its goal of Israel’s complete destruction. Most Jews believe that any accommodation with Israel is merely a hudna (truce) to gain a tactical advantage before resuming hostilities. Once Hamas joins with Fatah in a unity government, the entire Palestinian project becomes tainted. We then can expect Israel to declare that they no longer have a Palestinian partner.
What can the Europeans do about this, to demonstrate an understanding of Israel’s predicament? For one thing, the Europeans should use their influence to move Hamas to amend its founding charter and officially repudiate its stated goal of Israel’s destruction. They should put the Palestinians on notice that only with a changed Hamas can the proposed unity government be considered as an acceptable partner for peace.
Israel, for its part, needs to recognize that Europe’s concerns are also well-founded. Instead of reacting with a quick retort, it should understand the anxiety and frustration that its policy of unconstrained settlement expansion is causing Europe, which believes that a peace agreement is actually within reach. It needs to recognize that expanding its settlements is incompatible with arriving at a viable two-state solution. Even if undertaken for tactical reasons, expanding the settlements creates facts on the ground damaging to the viability of a future Palestinian state. A viable state needs territorial contiguity, but that would be impossible if fingers of settlements and their access roads were to cut deep into Palestine.
Furthermore, the Europeans are correct when they state that a viable Palestinian state and a two-state solution are “essential for Israel’s long-term security.” Peace with its nearest Arab neighbor, Palestine, will free Israeli resources to focus on the much more serious threat to its existence posed by Iran. It will also take the air out of the anti-Israeli sentiment throughout the Arab world that has blocked normalizing relations. These will be real security gains, with only the limited downside of occasional terrorist acts that could be foiled by Israeli-Palestinian cooperation on security. Israel should recognize that Europe, in seeking a negotiated peace, does not oppose its long-term interests.
Europe’s push on the matter of settlements is the admonishment of a friend. Israel would do well to listen. Otherwise, we could witness a serious deterioration in relations. That would be a shame.
_
