The European Union in Jerusalem

European consular cooperation

and the corpus separatum

Iris Voorwerk 10633154 [email protected] +31634705344

Date: June 11th 2018 University of Amsterdam, Master Human Geography, track Political Geography Supervisor: mw. dr. V. D. Mamadouh Second reader: Patrick Weir

The European Union in Jerusalem 2 Preface

In March 2018, I went to Jerusalem for four weeks to conduct research for this thesis. During the first few days in Jerusalem, I was overwhelmed by all the different religions in the Old City, the different kinds of people on the streets and the huge difference between West- and East-Jerusalem. When visiting Ramallah and Bethlehem, I was intrigued by the separation Wall. It was the first time in my life that I had seen such a phenomenon.

On May 12th 2018, Israel won the Eurovision Song Contest. When the singer was on stage after she gathered the highest amount of points of all the competitors, she proclaimed that next year the Eurovision Song Contest will take place in Jerusalem. Given the contested status of Jerusalem, opposing reactions from all over the world followed. Before writing this thesis, I might not have given any attention to the statement the singer made, but now it was different. My visit to Jerusalem has taught me that the status of Jerusalem is far from determined. Statements like the one the singer made are thus not merely a happy comment on winning the contest. Whether Jerusalem is part of Israel, Palestine or under control of the United Nations, there is no consensus. The precise location of the Eurovision Song Context of 2019 in Israel is not certain yet, but there is a change it will be in Jerusalem.

I would like to thank all the respondents that took the time to talk to me for this thesis. Each of these conversations were very interesting and contributed in a great way to the thesis. I want to thank my supervisor Virginie Mamadouh for supporting and helping me during the process of conducting this study. I also want to thank Joep Kelderman for sharing his GIS skills with me. Last, but not least, I want to thank Leonie Voorwerk and Tim Haverkamp for reviewing this thesis.

3 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam

The European Union in Jerusalem 4 Summary

This study is about the network of diplomacy between consulates of Member States of the European Union and the European External Action Service in Jerusalem. The European Union plays a big part in the process of the resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the contested status of Jerusalem. This role is reflected in the presence in Jerusalem and in the aims and actions of the European Union.

The framework for this study is based on literature about the European Foreign Policy, consular diplomacy and an exploration of the concept of contested territory. Together with an exploration of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the evolving status of Jerusalem, the theoretical framework is the foundation of the thesis.

The main research question of this thesis is How is the position of the European Union and its Member States on the contested status of Jerusalem reflected in the consular diplomatic presence and their mutual network? This research question has been addressed with a qualitative approach. Interviews have been conducted and triangulated with policy documents and academic literature. The interviews took place in Jerusalem in March and April 2018. The respondents were representatives of the consulates of Member States of the European Union, somebody at the European External Action Service (EEAS) in Jerusalem, an activist of an NGO in East-Jerusalem, a journalist of the Jerusalem Post and an academic specialized in the connections between the European Union and Palestine.

The combination between the different sources led to an understanding of the multi- layered implications of the location of the consulates and EEAS in Jerusalem. The EU considers Jerusalem still as the corpus separatum of the Partition Plan of 1947 and believes in the two-state solution to be the best solution for a peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine. The different interpretations about the status of Jerusalem combined with different law systems create a situation in which the two-state solution is not likely be established in the near future. An intense network of cooperation in Jerusalem between the consulates is caused by and causes at the same time, a common viewpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Jerusalem.

5 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam This viewpoint is expressed on the local scale level and through policy recommendations that are sent to the European Union in Brussels and governments of the Member States.

For future research there are multiple options. For example, an elaborate exploration of the viewpoint of residents in both Israel and Palestine would provide an interesting point of view. Part of the activities of the delegations of the European Union is done to increase the visibility of the European Union in both Israel and Palestine. The way in which the citizens perceive this, could offer interesting insights. Moreover, more respondents outside of the researched network between the representations of the European Union would give an interesting angle to the subject. Both of these options for further research are thus mainly related to how the European Union is regarded outside of the European Union itself.

The European Union in Jerusalem 6 Table of content

Preface ...... 3 Summary ...... 5 Table of content ...... 7 1. Introduction...... 9 2. Theoretical framework ...... 11 2.1 European Foreign Policy ...... 11 2.2 Consular Diplomacy ...... 14 2.3 Territorial sovereignty ...... 17 2.4 Contested cities ...... 20 2.5 The European Union and contested territories ...... 21 3.1 Research Design ...... 27 3.2 Interviews ...... 28 3.3 Secondary sources ...... 30 4. The evolving status of Jerusalem ...... 31 4.1 Before the Ottoman Empire ...... 31 4.2 Ottoman Empire ...... 31 4.3 British Mandate ...... 32 4.4 Partition Plan in 1947 ...... 33 4.5 Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ...... 36 4.6 Second intifada ...... 37 4.7 Present ...... 38 5. Why the European Union is involved in the conflict about Jerusalem ...... 41 5.1 Geopolitical factors ...... 41 5.2 International law ...... 43 5.3 Religion ...... 44 5.4 Criticism ...... 46 6. The aims and actions of the consulates ...... 49 6.1 Establishment ...... 49 6.2 Corpus separatum ...... 51 6.3 Council conclusions ...... 54 6.4 State building ...... 55 7. How the consulates of Member States of the European Union cooperate in Jerusalem ...... 57 7.1 Labelling ...... 57 7.2 Financial aid ...... 59 7.3 Diplomatic protection in East-Jerusalem...... 60

7 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam 7.4 Diplomatic network ...... 61 8. Conclusion ...... 65 8.1. Conclusion ...... 65 8.2 Discussion ...... 68 8.3 Further Research ...... 70 Bibliography ...... 71 Appendix: Topic list for the interviews with representatives of the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem ...... 83

The European Union in Jerusalem 8 1. Introduction

On December 6th 2017, Federica Mogherini gave a speech in Strasbourg about the position of the European Union regarding the solution of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The speech was a reaction to the statement of President Trump of the United States that the embassy of the United States to Israel would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (Mogherini, 2017). President Trump also declared in his statement that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel (President Trump, 2017). This declaration was opposed by the European Union. The European Union responded with the above- mentioned speech of Mogherini, that stated that the European Union will keep putting effort in the two-state solution, as it is considered the best solution for Israel and Palestine to live side by side in peace with Jerusalem as their shared capital (Mogherini, 2017).

The discussion about the status of Jerusalem is not new and the involvement of the European Union is not new either. In 1947, the United Nations developed a Partition Plan in which Jerusalem would come under control of the United Nations as a corpus separatum (Latin for separated body). Nowadays, the consulates of Member States of the European Union still see the corpus separatum to be the leading scheme for Jerusalem. They consider themselves to be the protectors of the corpus separatum (Bicchi, 2016).

In this thesis, the network between the consulates of Member States of the European Union is analysed in the context of the city of Jerusalem. The declaration of President Trump of the United States that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel foregrounded the debate about the status of Jerusalem once again. The position of the European Union in the contested status of Jerusalem is partly based on the information received from the consulates and the European External Action Service in Jerusalem. The consulates of the Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem interact locally and are a representation of the position of the European Union in the conflict about the status of Jerusalem. This is related to their location and their mere presence in the city. Okano- Heijmans (2013) explains how consular diplomacy has become more politically oriented over the last years. The way the consulates in Jerusalem are politically involved in the policy of the European Union on the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the status of Jerusalem is an example of this.

9 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam The main research question of this thesis is: How is the position of the European Union and its Member States on the contested status of Jerusalem reflected in the consular diplomatic presence and their mutual network?

The sub-questions that help answer the main research question are: - What are the reasons behind the involvement of the European Union and its Member States in the contested status of Jerusalem and Israel-Palestine as a whole? - What are the main aims of the consulates regarding the contested status of Jerusalem and how does this relate to their location in Jerusalem? - How is the cooperation of the consulates and EEAS constructed and what are the outcomes?

This study was conducted by a combination of interviews, review of academic literature and review of policy documents, in order to construct a complete analysis of the situation. The interviews have been conducted over a period of four weeks in Jerusalem and have been analysed afterwards. This study is an extreme case-study of European Union diplomacy. An extreme case-study is a case-study to a unique situation. The network that is explored in this thesis, takes place in one of the most contested cities in the world, namely Jerusalem. The downside of an extreme case-study is that it is not well applicable to other cases. The advantage of an extreme case-study is that it is a thorough exploration of this particular case (Bryman, 2012:70). The study has a qualitative approach and creates a thick description, which is a detailed account of behaviour in a specific context, of European consular cooperation in Jerusalem.

This thesis is structured as follows: first the most relevant concepts for this study are explored. After that, the research design and methods are explained. Then, the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the contested status of Jerusalem are described. Next, the sub-questions of the research will be answered in three chapters. The final chapter consists of the conclusion, in which the main research question is addressed, discussion and recommendations for further research.

The European Union in Jerusalem 10 2. Theoretical framework

In Jerusalem, there are seven consulates of Member States of the European Union. These consulates form a network of cooperation. The cooperation is influenced by the conflict between Israel and Palestine and Jerusalem specifically. In this chapter, other important concepts that influence the European consular diplomacy in Jerusalem will be explained. First, the European Foreign Policy will be discussed, followed by an explanation about consular diplomacy. After that, a part about sovereignty will follow, followed by a paragraph about divided cities and boundaries. Lastly, the concepts will be linked together as well as to the specific case of the European Union and its relation to Jerusalem.

2.1 European Foreign Policy The European Union is not only concerned with internal politics within its Member States, but also with external politics outside the Union. Part of the external politics is carried out through the European External Action Service which was established in 2009 (EEAS). In 2017, the EEAS had 128 delegations around the world and 4 special offices; namely in Taipei, Hong Kong, Jerusalem and Pristina (Bicchi & Maurer, 2018:12). The European Union is not a state, but it is active in the diplomatic network where states participate in as well. Ever since the European Union came to existence, the Union aimed at having a common external foreign policy (Wessel & van Vooren, 2013).

Before the Lisbon Treaty (see below), the current delegations of the European Union were delegations of the European Commission. The offices that represented the European Commission were founded in the 1950s. These offices were first established in strategically important capitals such as London and Washington (Drieskens, 2012:53). In the 1960s and 1970s the delegations mainly functioned as monitors for development policies of the European Commission in the ACP (African, Caribbean, Pacific) countries.

When the United Kingdom joined the European Commission in 1973, the external policy agenda of the Commission broadened to the former British Colonies and the number of delegations doubled (Drieskens, 2012:54). Moreover, the scope broadened and started to comprise more than just the purpose of monitoring development. The role of diplomatic representation became more important and the delegations of the European Commission

11 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam started to function like actual delegations, representing the European Commission in the host countries. This process of an expanding number of delegations around the world continued for decades and diplomatic cooperation got further form (Drieskens, 2012:54).

In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty was signed by twelve Member States. The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union that we know today and increased the political (external) cooperation (Drieskens, 2012:54). The Maastricht Treaty added the dimension of consular diplomacy to the political field in third countries and the way in which the consulates are responsible for (part of) the implementation of the common European foreign policy. This was done through extended information exchange and joint reporting (Drieskens, 2012:54). The following is stated in the treaty about the cooperation:

“The diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and the Commission Delegations in third countries and international conferences, and their representations to international organizations, shall cooperate in ensuring that the common positions and common measures adopted by the Council are complied with and implemented” (Council of the European Communities, 1992:127).

The common positions and the common measures are mainly based on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The Maastricht Treaty also improved the protection of EU-citizens in third countries. When a Member State does not have diplomatic representation, in the form of a consulate or embassy, in a third country, the representatives of other Member States of the European Union have the obligation to give the citizens of this Member State the same level of protection as they would give their own citizens (Council of the European Communities, 1992:63).

The treaties of Nice and of Amsterdam in 1997 and 2001 respectively, gave further form to the cooperation between Member States and their common voice in foreign politics. The position of ‘High Representative for CFSP’ was introduced with the Amsterdam Treaty (Smith, 2016:309). The growing network of delegations of the European Union remained under jurisdiction of the European Commission and they were mainly focused on commercial and development diplomacy (Smith, 2016:310).

The European Union in Jerusalem 12 The establishment of the EEAS (the current diplomatic representation of the European Union) took place in 2009, with the signing of the Lisbon Treaty (Drieskens, 2012:53). The Lisbon Treaty changed the way in which the European Union executed diplomacy. With the Lisbon Treaty, representations of the Commission changed to actual delegations of the European Union and became EU-embassies that were called the European External Action Service (Wessel & van Vooren, 2013:1532). This was not merely a name change, but it gave European delegations in third states the ability to speak on behalf of the entire European Union, with the approval of the European Union in Brussels and to coordinate the missions of the separate Member States of the European Union in the host location (Wessel & van Vooren, 2013:1352). Coordination between the Member States increases the credibility and effectiveness of the common foreign policy that the European Union wants to express (Austermann, 2014). Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty created new positions, such as the President of the European Council and the High Representative (HR) of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Vataman, 2012:720). The position of HR was already partly created in the Amsterdam Treaty, but got further form with the Lisbon Treaty. The HR is also the vice president of the European Commission, linking these two bodies that are responsible for European diplomacy. The European Commission is mainly involved with trade diplomacy of the European Union, whereas the EEAS is responsible for the implementation of the CFSP (Smith, 2016:310).

Since the Lisbon Treaty, the delegations of the European Union started to fulfil roles and functions more similar to regular national embassies (Austermann, 2014). The information coming from the delegations is often going straight to the leaders of the European Union which increases the influence of the European Union on the global political agenda. Member States are encouraged to centralize practical tasks, such as issuing visas (Austermann, 2014:28). With the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the EEAS a unified foreign voice representing the entire European Union was created. However, the European Commission continues to represent the European Union externally except in terms of the CFSP (Wouters & Duquet, 2012:36). The EEAS is set up as a separate body of the European Commission in order to differentiate between the two European institutions. However, the EEAS as a delegation of the European Union worldwide seems to have created yet another voice in the international political arena speaking on behalf of the European Union (Wouters & Duquet, 2012:36).

13 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Part of the coordination between delegations of Member States in third countries is political reporting about the status of the host state or city (Austermann, 2014:64). The joint reporting is an outcome of the interconnectedness of the delegations of Member States of the European Union and the EEAS. The reports are drafted by the Heads of Missions of the delegations of Member States and supervised by the Head of Mission of the EEAS (Bicchi, 2011). The reports are sent to Brussels, where they are combined with reports from other delegations and used for policy making at the EEAS in Brussels (Bicchi, 2011:90). In contrary to other written documents that are sent to the governments of the Member States, which can be very lengthy and contain many different elements (mainly economic), these reports are shorter and issued at least once a week. The purpose of the reports is to give a complete overview to the EEAS in Brussels of the situation on the ground and the events that are taking place (Bicchi, 2011:90).

Heads of Missions of delegations of Member States of the European Union thus form a diplomatic network (for example through consulates) in the host state. Over recent year consulates have become more involved with political issues, mainly in the form of cooperation. In the next paragraph this development will be highlighted.

2.2 Consular Diplomacy Diplomacy is an outcome of international relations. The general aim of a diplomatic mission is to improve national security, prosperity and welfare in the home state and the receiving state. Because of globalization, states and people become more dependent on each other. Therefore, diplomatic missions play a big role in providing national security, prosperity and welfare (Rana, 2016). At the same time, new ways of communication and other (supranational, non-governmental etc.) institutions have been added to the diplomatic arena over the last decades. This changes the ‘traditional’ diplomacy between merely nation-states (Rana, 2016:150).

There is an important difference between diplomatic representation in the form of an embassy or a consulate. Embassies are places that express sovereignty, mutual recognition and presence in the international system (Rana, 2016:149). Embassies represent the (bilateral) ties that exist between countries and give a little insight in each other’s culture and ways of organizing important matters. Therefore, embassies are responsible for the state-to-state communication and (bilateral) ties (Rana, 2016:149).

The European Union in Jerusalem 14 Consulates on the other hand used to be more focused on economic, day-to-day issues and providing ‘on the ground’ services. “Not all consular activities involve a degree of diplomacy or international, high politics” (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:1). The origin of the concept of a consulate goes back to a period in history when European economics were flourishing and the need for negotiations and accords between different areas rose (Fernandez Pasarin, 2016:161). The first evidence for the existence of a consulate has been found in relation to Greek city-states. Consulates used to be mainly economically focused and played important roles in trade between countries and areas, now they are becoming more politically orientated as well (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:3; Fernandez Pasarin, 2016).

The separation between low politics (visas and other consular services) and high politics (diplomacy or international relations) is becoming blurred. Part of consular work is related to visibility of a state. There is a certain marketing value that can boost the image of the sending state. This image is an important part of public diplomacy that creates awareness amongst citizens in the host state. It is an example of the increasing political activities that consulates are involved in (Okano-Heijmans, 2013). Increasing involvement in politics can result in cooperation between different consulates in a certain country or within a city (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:4). Especially catastrophic events, such as the tsunami in Asia in 2004 or the terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001, create situations in which it was necessary for governments, and thus consulates, to work together (Fernandez Pasarin, 2016:166).

Important legal cornerstones of consular diplomacy are the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) in 1963. These two conventions are the basis of present diplomatic activities and consular law. In total, more than 170 states participated in both conventions (Wouters et al., 2013:2). The VCDR of 1961 set, amongst other aspects, ground rules for the function of diplomats and for diplomatic immunity. Two years after the signing of the VCDR, the VCCR was signed. This convention was mainly about the practices and activities of consulates. With the VCCR, a consensus was reached on consular activities. Before the establishment of the VCCR, consular affairs were mainly decided on a domestic or bilateral level. When the VCCR was established, it became easier to work together for consulates, in for example emergency situations (Fernandez Pasarin, 2016:164).

15 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam New ways of communicating and the way information is (electronically) processed greatly influence the way diplomacy is executed nowadays (Rana, 2016:150). Some argue that the VCDR and VCCR are outdated, since they for example do not include anything about these new ways of communication or about public diplomacy. The outlets of public diplomacy have also changed into new types of (social) media (Rana, 2016:150).

Increasing cooperation in the European Union goes hand in hand with the political developments of consular diplomacy. The Member States of the European Union are working together on their common foreign policy, especially since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Some European Union Member States have a very extensive and expensive diplomatic network and are reluctant in creating a formalized cooperation network because they might not get enough in return for the information and means put into the cooperation (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:18). There is also a fear of a decrease in speed and efficiency when cooperation would get more intense (Okano- Heijmans, 2013:4). Moreover, consular agents are not so much concerned with political aims and have a more on-the-ground function and focus on practical matters. The mixture of these practical activities with political aims can be complicated (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:2).

Since different countries have different points of view on certain issues, sharing data and setting common standards is not easily done. Earlier attempts by, for example, the European Union have shown that it is an immense diplomatic challenge to actually achieve a deep going collaboration with regards to consular affairs (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:4). The delegations of the European Union turned into delegations very similar to the consulates and embassies of the nation-states. Delegations of Member States of the European Union are coordinated by delegations of the European Union, in the form of the EEAS, in third states (Okano-Heijmans, 2013).

Some embassies or consulates are serving more than one country, if one of the states does not have a diplomatic in that particular host state (Mamadouh et al., 2015:571). When a state is not recognized by the international community, does not have full sovereignty or is not a democratic state, having a bilateral diplomatic relationship can be a delicate issue. For instance, Taiwan is only recognized by 22 states around the world, creating a diplomatic controversy (Mamadouh et al, 2015:571). Burkina Faso is one of only two

The European Union in Jerusalem 16 states that remained having formal diplomatic relationships with Taiwan after it split from China. With the rise of China as one of the biggest players in developmental aid in Africa, this relationship can be called extraordinary (Cabestan, 2016). Taiwan is one of Burkina Faso’s biggest development partners, both politically and financially. Taiwan puts a lot of effort into public diplomacy. Their generosity to Burkina Faso can serve as a window and example to other countries in Africa (Cabestan, 2016:496).

Although China is one of the biggest investors and trade partners with most states in Africa, Burkina Faso attempts to remain independent from their neighbouring countries such as Mali and Côte d’Ivoire and from China (Cabestan, 2016:512). Mali and Côte d’Ivoire are two of many African countries that are part of China’s intensive development and trade policy (Cabestan, 2016). However, the business community in Burkina Faso has strong ties with Côte d’Ivoire and is putting pressure on the government of Burkina Faso for a switch to development cooperation with China since the Chinese economy has more to offer than the economy of Taiwan to the pour country of Burkina Faso. If China will indeed become a development partner of Burkina Faso, the Chinese government might demand that the diplomatic ties between Taiwan and Burkina Faso would have to be ended (Cabestan, 2016). The external sovereignty of Taiwan is limited, since only 22 states recognized Taiwan since it split from China. Diplomatic relations are related to the external sovereignty of a state. In the next paragraph, the concept of territorial sovereignty will be discussed.

2.3 Territorial sovereignty The basis for the engagement in international relations is territory (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Sovereignty over this territory provides the legitimization for the international relations of the territory. Sovereignty can only exist when there is a mutual recognition of territories within the framework of the inter-state system (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). There is a difference between external and internal sovereignty. Internal sovereignty has to do with effective state structures and a legitimate authority over the territory, whereas external sovereignty has to do with recognition by other states (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:758).

17 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Since the end of the second world war in 1945, the main attribute for international recognition of sovereignty has been a membership to the United Nations (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Post-colonial states in Africa and Asia, as well as states that formerly belonged to the Soviet Union thus immediately applied for a membership to the United Nations to legitimize their new statehood (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Bouris and Kyris (2017) use the following quantitative way of determining the external sovereignty of a state:

“We suggest that there is high external sovereignty where there is recognition by more than two-thirds of United Nations (UN) member states and low external sovereignty where less than one-third of UN members recognize, with the rest of contested states enjoying medium external sovereignty” (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:758).

The foundations of claims on territories can differ per case and time. Claims on territory can have a geographical basis, a historical basis or a cultural basis. Geographical claims are related to the location of a certain territory and the incorporation of this geographic entity into the territory of a possible sovereign state. Historical claims are related to past possession of the land whereas cultural claims are based on national claims about national self-determination (Flint & Taylor, 2011:124). State borders can only exist when there is mutual recognition between the representatives of the states and possibly of the international community about the claims that are being made. A conflict is likely to arise when this mutual recognition is not present (Paasi, 1996:3).

Boundaries and capital cities are the two major manifestations of territorial sovereignty (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Boundaries are representations of the border between territories with different jurisdictions. Border landscapes are distinguished locations with custom services and controls. Capital cities are (symbolic) representations that might show the grandeur that a state wants to express to the rest of the world (Flint & Taylor, 2011:125). A border landscape is different than other types of landscapes. It creates a separating line between different groups of people (culturally, societally, politically or religiously). “It is simultaneously a crucially important manifestation between us and them, as well as of the state’s power and authority that extends directly to all individuals within its boundaries” (Paasi, 1996: 268).

The European Union in Jerusalem 18 A complicated issue of sovereignty is created when a border goes straight through a (capital) city. Examples of this are Berlin in the time of the Wall between East- and West- Germany and Jerusalem (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999:169).

In the era of globalization, the meaning of state borders decreases while the influence of the global community on a state and a city increases. This creates a situation in which a city is not only divided into different parts within the city itself, but a more complicated situation arises under the influence of other parties (Alfasi & Fenster, 2009). Borders used to be the most researched aspect of political geography, especially in the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1960s this interest started to decline (Flint & Taylor, 2011:125). This was mainly caused by the decreasing meaning of state borders in Europe and North- America, where political geography was practiced mostly (Flint & Taylor, 2011: 125).

With the decreasing meaning of state borders, there came a restructuring of the meaning of nation states and the differences that exist between territories. State borders still have meaning and are still representations of the division between different territories, but the way in which territories are divided (economically, religiously, politically) is not as clear as it might have been before (Paasi, 1996). Especially after the creation of the United Nations, the need for militarized and strict border security decreased. The chance of being invaded by a neighbouring state became smaller and mutual recognition between states in terms of international visa and passport policies was introduced. Despite the generally decreasing meaning of state borders, the beginning of the 21st century marked an increase of worldwide terrorism and the consequential war on terror (Jones, 2012). In the first decade of the 21st century the global war on terror caused an increasing need to defend territories with strict borders secured with walls and fences in order to keep terrorism out of the territory (Jones, 2012). Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is a growing need to physically protect territory again. Jones (2012) showed this is the case in, for example, the United States and the border with Mexico, Israel and the border with the Palestinian territories and India and the border with Pakistan. Sometimes, these borders go straight through a city, which can create complicated situations.

19 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam 2.4 Contested cities Cities consist of different neighbourhoods and different parts with a specific composition of people. A city can be divided in different parts related to wealth, ethnicity, age or religion (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999). This kind of segregation takes place in every city around the world. Nevertheless, there is a difference between segregation and partition within a city. Partition is usually used as a term to explain a situation in which an existing geographic entity, such as a city, is divided into two or more divided entities. This goes further than ‘soft’ segregation. Generally, the outcome of these types of division and exclusive sovereignty over certain parts of a city is a territorial dispute (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999:169). Especially in border zones, there is a risk of assessing people on the other side of the border as ‘the other’ and in some cases as being uncivilized people that need to be kept out of the protected territory, also on the relatively small surface of a city (Jones, 2012).

Many cities are divided along the lines of different political orientations, different economic statuses, different ethnicities or different religions (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999). These divisions of territory might be under control of different jurisdictions. Absolute sovereignty over such a division in territory has produced and still produces huge wealth inequalities in the entire world. These inequalities can cause the migration of people from one area to another in order to find wealth in another place (Jones, 2012). To be able to fully experience citizenship and fulfil civil rights, it is necessary for every citizen to experience full inclusion in society and not to be excluded from certain physical or non- physical parts of the city (Harris, 2013). The conflicts that arise between different groups effect the well-being of residents and the functioning of that particular urban environment. “The process of partition/division (…) represents the unfortunate final form of group conflict” (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999:196). Different types of backgrounds in terms of economics, religion, ethnicity or language can cause groups to only exist next to each other in conflict. In society, people with different characteristics are sometimes treated differently (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999). Especially this last issue can cause conflict and dissatisfaction.

The partition of cities is something that likely occurs after a war or a conflict. When a new border is established after a war, local communities and citizens have to accept and adjust to the new situation (Paasi, 1996:269). For example, the city of Sarajevo was

The European Union in Jerusalem 20 partitioned after the war in the 1990s. The city lost its status as a socialist city and came into a new era of radical changes in the political and economic system (Aquilué & Roca, 2016). Besides the demolished physical environment that remained after the conflict, Sarajevo had to cope with the renewed status of a divided city and the radical societal changes that took place (Aquilué & Roca, 2016:153).

Sometimes, when a city is in a conflict that cannot be solved internally, the city is placed under the jurisdiction of the international community. An example of a city placed under international control is the Free City of Danzig in current Poland. The Treaty of Versailles established the Free City of Danzig in 1919. In this Treaty the League of Nations (predecessor of the United Nations) placed the city of Danzig under international control because of rising tensions between the Polish Republic and residents of the Free City of Danzig (Lemay-Hébert, 2017:475). The main role of the League of Nations was to assure the establishment of the constitution of the Free City of Danzig and other aspects of their rights to self-determination (Lemay-Hébert, 2017:475). In practice, the League of Nations served as an umpire in conflicts between the population of the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Republic. The effective authority of the High Commissioner that was appointed by the League of Nations to settle disputes between Danzig and Poland remained relatively low. Moreover because he did not have any administrative authority (Lemay- Hébert, 2017:475). This makes the control of the League of Nations of the Free City of Danzig more similar to a peace operation than to an actual international administration. The supervision of the League of Nations over the Free City of Danzig ended with the invasion of German Troops in 1939 (Lemay-Hébert, 2017:476).

Part of the common foreign policy of the European Union (as discussed in paragraph 2.1) is to create a common viewpoint in situations of territorial disputes, such as the above described case of Danzig. In the next paragraph, the common foreign policy of the European Union will be related to the concept of contested territories.

2.5 The European Union and contested territories Bouris and Kyris (2017) wrote an article about the common European policy and how policy can be under pressure when sovereignty of a state is not recognized by (part of) the international community. The examples used by Bouris and Kyris (2017) are Northern Cyprus and Palestine. Statuses of contested territories can have different consequences

21 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam for European influence. On the one hand it creates difficulties in the cooperation between the territory and the European Union and on the other hand it creates circumstances in which the European Union has more room to support the creation of a sovereign territory, as is the case with Palestine (Bouris & Kyris, 2017). Part of the policy of the European Union in promoting statehood and state-building processes is the support and promotion of local civil society. The policy has created small positive steps in terms of the establishment of the voice of local people in the wider context, but the long-term sustainable effect of this strategy remains to be seen (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:762).

The current European Union is not the same as it was before. The European Coal and Steel Community (the earliest predecessor of the European Union) started with six members. Nowadays the European Union is comprised of 28 Member States (European Commission, 2016a (Webpage)). Because the EEAS represents the entire European Union in host locations, the delegations of Member States of the European Union loose part of their own sovereignty in decision-making processes. Moreover, the need for unanimous decision-making in European Union foreign policy requires a certain amount of compromising, which is more complicated when more parties are involved (Austermann, 2014:2). For example, in the case of creating consular international cooperation, larger Member States are sometimes wary because of a fear of a decreasing speed and efficiency if the consular activities were to be centralized (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:7).

To what extent the European Union represents a unified voice when all the different Member States still have their own political agendas and voices, remains an important issue (Ciceo, 2012). The further (political) integration of the European Union transfers the national sovereignty of the Member States to the supranational level of the European Union (Austermann, 2014:15). The creation of the international representative body of the European Union, the EEAS, was subject to internal negotiations between the Member States (Murdoch, 2012). Murdoch (2012) states that internal forces and negotiations within the European Union always influence external behaviour and policies, which is a reflection of the power relations and the key actors. The ability to overcome internal differences influences the ability to do deal with external debates (Murdoch, 2012). Both the internal and external sovereignty of the European Union are under debate. The ability to overcome the internal division within the European Union increases their external

The European Union in Jerusalem 22 validity in their foreign policy. The common foreign policy imposes extra challenges on this internal division, because the common foreign policy of the European Union might be conflicting with the foreign policy of Member States (Murdoch, 2012).

The European diplomacy and the coordination between representations of the Member States of the European Union takes place everywhere, but Jerusalem is a unique situation. This is due to the contested value of its territory, its legal status, the shifting location of borders, the international involvement and the religious significance for multiple religions (Bicchi, 2016). There is not much literature about diplomacy in a divided country, let alone in a contested city. The case of Jerusalem is complicated further by the difficult issue of the (non) recognition of Jerusalem as the capital for either Israel or Palestine or both (Emmett, 1996).

How the diplomatic relations between de European Union as a whole and Jerusalem cope with these issues will be studied in this thesis. Table 1 provides an overview of the 28 Member States of the European Union and their (non)recognition of Palestine and diplomatic representation in the Palestinian territories. Table 1 shows that Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom have a consulate general in Jerusalem. These consulates are the subject of this research. The Member States of the European Union that recognized Palestine in 1988 did so after the declaration of independence of Palestine. This declaration is considered to be a unilateral declaration of independence that would give the Palestinian state more leverage to end the occupation of Israel. It is a demonstration of their right to self-determination and was only recognized by part of the European Union Member States (Tilley, 2010).

23 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Table 1: Current Member States of the European Union and their recognition of Palestine Member State Date of recognition Diplomatic location in Palestinian of Palestine Territories 1. Austria No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 2. Belgium No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem 3. Bulgaria 25 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 4. Croatia No recognition No representation 5. Cyprus 18 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 6. Czech Republic 18 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 7. Denmark No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 8. Estonia No recognition No representation 9. Finland No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 10. France No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem 11. Germany No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 12. Greece No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem 13. Hungary 23 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 14. Ireland No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 15. Italy No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem 16. Latvia No recognition Cooperates with Representative Office of Switzerland in Ramallah 17. Lithuania No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 18. Luxembourg No recognition No representation 19. Malta 16 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 20. Netherlands No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 21. Poland 14 December 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 22. Portugal No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 23. Romania 24 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 24. Slovakia 18 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 25. Slovenia No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 26. Spain No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem 27. Sweden 30 October 2014 Consulate General in Jerusalem 28. United Kingdom No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem Source: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en (For the Member States) http://palestineun.org/about-palestine/diplomatic-relations/ (Recognition dates) Ministries of Foreign Affairs (Diplomatic representation locations)

The highlighted Member states are the nine states that were part of singing the Venice Declaration, which put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the European foreign policy agenda for the first time. The Venice Declaration will be explained further in chapter 5. The highlighted diplomatic offices are the consulates in Jerusalem that this study is about.

The European Union in Jerusalem 24 Table 2: Overview of combinations of recognition and representations in the Palestinian territory Jerusalem Ramallah No representation Recognition 1 Member States 8 Member (Sweden) States No recogntion 6 Member States 10 Member 3 Member States (Spain, United States Kingdom, Italy, France, Greece, Belgium)

Table 2 is an analysis of the in table 1 portrayed information. What is shows is that there are multiple options regarding the interrelation between the recognition of the Palestinian state and the location of diplomatic representation in the Palestinian territory. Sweden is the only Member State of the European Union that has diplomatic representation in the city of Jerusalem and recognized the Palestinian state. There are eight diplomatic representations of Member States of the European Union in Ramallah that recognized the state of Palestine. Moreover, Belgium and Italy are the only two out of nine states that were part of signing the Venice Declaration that have their diplomatic representation to the Palestinian territories in Jerusalem. The EEAS only has a representative office in Jerusalem, and not in Ramallah (EEAS, n.y. (Webpage)). The division within the European Union about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and contested status of Jerusalem is thus not only related to the issue of recognizing the Palestinian state. The choice for the location of representation is also internally divided. The study in this thesis is only about the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem, not the representative offices in Ramallah. In the next chapter the methods for the study will be discussed.

25 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam

The European Union in Jerusalem 26 3. Research methods

In this chapter the research design and the conducted methods will be discussed. The study was performed in Jerusalem, where in a time frame of four weeks interviews were conducted with relevant actors, the national library of Israel was visited and entities involved in the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine were observed, such as the Old City of Jerusalem and the Wall between the territories.

3.1 Research Design This research is a case-study about the European diplomatic network in Jerusalem. It is regarded as an extreme case study of European Union diplomacy, in the form of the EEAS and delegations of Member States of the European Union. The situation of Jerusalem is unique and influences the status of European diplomacy, more than in other cities or countries. This study is thus a unique case, which is why it is regarded as an extreme case- study (Bryman, 2012:70). The advantage of this is that it creates a complete and thorough exploration of the units of analysis, which are the delegations of the European Union in Jerusalem. The disadvantage of this type of research is that the external validity of the findings is limited, since it is a study to only one particular case.

I studied the way in which the consulates of the Member States of the European Union handle the contested and unique status of Jerusalem and how their mere presence represents their position. Because of this, I limited my studies to the consulates that are present in Jerusalem and not the ones that chose to locate their diplomatic representation in for example Ramallah. Bicchi (2016:467) explains that the present consulates in Jerusalem are considered the protectors of the corpus separatum (more about the corpus separatum will be explained in chapter 4). The choice for a specific location has political implications, which will be studied in this thesis.

The study has a qualitative approach. A thick description of the situation in Jerusalem is created (Bryman, 2012). A thick description is a detailed account of behaviour in a particular context. This behavioural account might be transferrable to another context (Bryman, 2012:392). Different views are combined through the conduction of interviews, the analyses of documents and the use of academic literature about the subject. Especially by taking different views into account a clear understanding is created, using the

27 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam technique of triangulation in which different viewpoints are combined to create a clear understanding. The main research question is as follows: How is the position of the European Union and its Member States on the contested status of Jerusalem reflected in the consular diplomatic presence and their mutual network?

The sub-questions that help answer the main research question are: - What are the reasons behind the involvement of the European Union and its Member States in the contested status of Jerusalem and Israel-Palestine as a whole? - What are the main aims of the consulates regarding the contested status of Jerusalem and how does this relate to their location in Jerusalem? - How is the cooperation of the consulates and EEAS constructed and what are the outcomes?

3.2 Interviews The seven consulates of the European Union Member Status Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, France, Greece and the United Kingdom in Jerusalem have been contacted beforehand in order to make an appointment for an interview. Since the consulates are relatively small, I sent an e-mail with the explanation about the study to the general e- mail addresses with the request to talk to somebody with relevant knowledge about the subject. The same sort of e-mail was sent to the European External Action Service in Jerusalem. In case I received no reply, I sent follow-up e-mails. In case there would still be no reaction, I either called or paid a visit to the consulates upon arrival in Jerusalem. I also sent e-mails to journalists, academics and activists, after which conversations followed in Jerusalem. A full overview of the eventual interviewees can be found in table 3.

The European Union in Jerusalem 28 Table 3: Overview of the interviewees Interviews 1. Representative of the European External Action Service 2. Representative of the Belgian Consulate 3. Representative of the Swedish Consulate 4. Representative of the Italian Consulate 5. Representative of the Greek Consulate 6. Representative of the French Consulate 7. Interview with Fayrouz of NGO Grassroots Jerusalem 8. Interview with journalist Benjamin Weinthal of the Jerusalem Post 9. Conversation with Dimitris Bouris of the University of Amsterdam

The sub-questions together with the theoretical framework are the basis for the questions of the interviews. During the interviews, questions with a practical basis that would provide insight into the network between the consulates of the European Union in Jerusalem were asked. The role of the consulate in the joint reporting was discussed, but also the choices for the location of the consulate and how the location represents the political viewpoint of the consulate and Member State. Moreover, the declaration of president Trump of the United States was discussed in order to get an insight into the process of the statement building for the entire European Union. The questions were thus constructed in a way that would demonstrate the position of that particular consulate in the consular network in Jerusalem. Also, possible contact with the municipality, diplomatic representations in Tel Aviv, Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the Member States and the EEAS in Brussels was discussed, in order to understand the position of the consulate in the wider context, outside of Jerusalem itself. An overview of the topic list for the interviews can be found in the appendix. Since the questions of the interviews were derived from the sub-questions of the study, the answers to the questions could also be transferred back to the sub-questions. The answers of the interviewees have been linked to policy documents and academic literature to construct answers to the research questions. Other sources such as newspaper articles were occasionally used to fill gaps in the analysis of policy documents, literature and the answers of the respondents.

Part of the interviews have been recorded and transcribed afterwards. Some conversations were not allowed to be recorded and thus notes were written down during the interviews. The respondents at the consulates and EEAS did not want to be mentioned by name and only through the consulate they worked at. The conversation at the EEAS and at the Belgian consulate were held in Dutch, the other interviews in English.

29 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam 3.3 Secondary sources The answers of the interviews were combined with other sources. The websites of the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem themselves were consulted mostly for practical information about the consulate and EEAS and (extra) information about their viewpoint. Different websites of the European Union have been consulted, e.g. the website of the European Commission and of the EEAS. The website of the European Commission has mainly been used for information about trade and international partnerships with for example Palestine and Israel and important documents such as the 2017 Annual Action Program in favour of Palestine. The website of the EEAS in Jerusalem has been explored for information about the delegation and local statements. The website of the EEAS in Brussels has been used to find general statements of the entire EEAS. The website of the United Nations has been explored to obtain the Partition Plan and documents of the UNRWA. Important documents that were discussed during the interviews such as the joint reports of the EEAS and Member States and latest Council Conclusions were looked up afterwards on the internet. The same method has been used for retrieving important treaties such as the Venice Declaration (see below) or the Maastricht Treaty.

In order to understand in which context this research is taking place, the next chapter will give an overview about the contested status of Jerusalem and about the wider context of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. This overview is mostly based on academic literature. After that, the three sub-questions will be addressed in three separate chapters. Each chapter consists of four paragraphs. The first chapter is rather general in scope. It explains the reasons for the European Union to be involved in the contested status of Jerusalem. The second chapter is more specific in that it explains the aims and actions of the European Union in Jerusalem. The third and last chapter consists of examples and outcomes of the cooperation between the consulates of Member States of the European Union and EEAS in Jerusalem.

The European Union in Jerusalem 30 4. The evolving status of Jerusalem

Jerusalem is one of the thorniest issues in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Israel declared the city as the eternal capital of the state of Israel and Palestinian people see (part of) the city as the possible capital of the future Palestinian state (Shoshan, 2010). This is due to the fact that the Old City of Jerusalem is home to different religious important sites for Judaism, Islam and Christianity (Shoshan, 2010). This is not the place nor time to go very deeply into all the aspects concerning the complicated status of Jerusalem, but a background will be provided.

4.1 Before the Ottoman Empire The status of Jerusalem has had many different forms throughout history. For Judaism it has been the spiritual centre since the 10th century BCE (Emmett, 1996:234). According to the (Jewish) Bible, King David conquered the strategic hilltop of Jebus or Jerusalem several years before 1000 BCE. It was not yet conquered by any of the tribes in the area and therefore did not belong to anybody yet. Jerusalem was a neutral place at that time and could thus serve as the capital of a new political entity (Emmett, 1996:234). Jerusalem became the royal capital under the rule of King David and Solomon. (Emmett, 1996). The Western Wall is a remainder of a temple that used to be the second temple for the Jewish faith (Emmett, 1996:252). Interestingly, according to Christianity it is the place where Jesus Christ was supposedly crucified and buried (O’Mahony, 2005). The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is built on the place where Jesus Christ was crucified and buried and is home to different Christian patriarchates (O’Mahony, 2005:86). For Islamic people Jerusalem is the third most important place in the world because it is the place where Muhammad went to heaven. Nowadays the Dome of the Rock is constructed at the place where Muhammad supposedly ascended to heaven (Emmett, 1996:236). Over a period of centuries, Jerusalem was shifting between the status of royal capital and provincial or regional capital under the rule of different peoples such as the Crusades and Ottomans (Emmett, 1996).

4.2 Ottoman Empire During the Ottoman period, from 1517 till 1917 Jerusalem was mainly a provincial capital (Wasserstein, 2001:14). Especially during the beginning of the Ottoman period, Jerusalem was an inward-looking city. The Wall around the Old City that still exists

31 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam nowadays was built in order to keep invaders out and to protect the city from outside forces. The population of Jerusalem was living inside these walls, living closely to the important Holy sites of their religion (Wasserstein, 2001). In the final phases of the Ottoman Empire, the city started to grow, especially due to the increasing amount of Jewish and Christian immigrants (Wasserstein, 2001:45). The Old City became too crowded and started to expand outside of the city walls. Muslims mainly moved to the North and South of Jerusalem and Jews to the West. This spatial pattern is still visible today (Wasserstein, 2001:48). Together with the growth, Jerusalem started to change into an outward-looking, internationally involved city. Since 1880 early Zionists started to settle in Palestine. Zionism is the nationalistic Jewish movement that formed the foundation of a Jewish state (Wasserstein, 2001:49).

4.3 British Mandate During the First World War, in 1916, France and Great-Britain negotiated a division plan to divide among themselves the Middle-East. This plan came to be known as the ‘Sykes- Picot’ agreement (Wasserstein, 2001:72). The Sykes-Picot agreement marked the end of the Ottoman empire in Jerusalem. The Ottoman empire ended with the British occupation in the First World War in 1917. The Old City with the religious sites was an impoverished entity that was too full and the New City became a patchwork of different (ethnic) neighbourhoods (Wasserstein, 2001:49). In 1917 the British minister of foreign affairs Arthur James Balfour send a letter to the leader of a Jewish community in Great-Britain in which the willingness and British efforts to establish a Jewish state in Palestine was expressed (Balfour Declaration, 1917). This letter came to be known as the Balfour declaration and also stated that “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country” (Balfour Declaration, 1917). Years later, in 1948, according to David Ben-Gurion (the Israeli prime-minister of that time) the Balfour declaration formed the international recognition of the connection between Israel and the Jewish people (Ben-Gurion, 1948). In 1922 the Council of the League of Nations approved the establishment of the Jewish state by the British mandate. Both the Balfour Declaration and establishment of the Mandate did not mention the status of Jerusalem (Harpaz, 2012:453).

The European Union in Jerusalem 32 In 1924 the British mandate established Jerusalem to be the capital of the mandate, because of the religious value. Because of the strong links of Jerusalem with the Bible Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital over the more practical located cities such as Jaffa or Haifa (Emmett, 1996:236). Both the Jewish and Palestinian people considered other cities to be more crucial due to their location. It was in the 1930s when nationalism on both sides became more intense that the city gained importance to both groups (Emmett, 1996:237; Wasserstein, 2001). In the aftermath of the Second World War Jewish immigration to the Palestinian territory of the British mandate rose further. Survivors of the Holocaust sought safety in the developing Jewish state of Israel (Wasserstein, 2001). The influx of more Jewish people to the Palestinian territory of the British mandate sharpened the tension between Palestinians and immigrants. In the hope of resolving the issue between the revolting parties, the British government turned to the United Nations. In 1947 the British mandate over Palestine ended and the entire Palestinian territory together with Jerusalem came under jurisdiction of the United Nations (Shoshan, 2010).

4.4 Partition Plan in 1947 The United Nations developed a partition plan that would divide the Palestinian territory into different parts, namely a Palestinian, Israeli and an international part. Jerusalem was in the partition plan of 1947 supposed to come under international control of the United Nations as a corpus separatum (Wasserstein, 2001). The idea behind placing Jerusalem under international control was that the government of the city would be rather neutral and not involved in local politics in order to provide protection to the different religious sites in Jerusalem and its outskirts (Wasserstein, 2001:127). The original map of the Partition Plan for the entire territory of Israel and Palestine is shown in figure 1. In figure 2, the area dedicated to the corpus separatum is shown. The Partition Plan was rejected by the Arab-Palestinians and led to the eventual withdrawal of the British (Harpaz, 2012:453). Later, a plan was developed to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum under divided control of Israel, Palestine and the international community in the form of the United Nations (Emmett, 1996:247).

33 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam

Figure 1: Original map of the Partition Plan of the United Nations Source: Resolution 181, United Nations (1947)

The European Union in Jerusalem 34 Figure 2: Original map of the greater area of Jerusalem as the corpus separatum Source: Resolution 181, United Nations (1947)

What followed on the different attempts to make Jerusalem into an international city was the Israeli war of independence between Israel and multiple Arab states. The outcome of this war were the armistice agreements (Shoshan, 2010). These were signed in 1949 and were aimed at creating a sustainable peace. However, they appeared to miss many features such as diplomatic ties and economic treaties to create an actual sustainable peace (Shoshan, 2010). The armistice agreements were based on the so-called ‘Green Line’. The Green Line divided the Palestinian territory into an Israeli part and a Palestinian part and Jerusalem was divided into an Eastern and a Western part (Bicchi, 2016:467). Until 1967, Jerusalem was divided into two parts by walls, wires and fences. There were hardly any Arabs in West-Jerusalem anymore and no Jews were living in East-Jerusalem. West- Jerusalem under Israeli grew in the period till 1967, both geographically and economically, whereas East-Jerusalem under Jordan rule did not grow that much. After 19 years of separation, following upon the Six Day War, on 7 June 1967 Israeli forces occupied East Jerusalem (Shoshan, 2010). This war again took place between Israel and

35 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam different Arab states. By the end of the Six Day War Israel occupied the entire West Bank (including East-Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and other areas in the territory. For Jerusalem, a complicated legal situation was created. According to Israeli law, East-Jerusalem was part of Israel whereas according to the international community East-Jerusalem was still part of the corpus separatum (Bicchi, 2016:467). After the Six-Day war the planning of the Wall that would divide Israeli and Palestinian territory started to be developed and later to be approved (Shoshan, 2010). However, the location of this Wall was not based on the Green Line, causing different territorial borders (Bicchi, 2016:467). In 1978 another phase of negotiations took place, namely the Camp David Talks between Egyptian and Israeli officials. The Egyptians had a strong position towards Jerusalem and called for restoration of Arab sovereignty in East-Jerusalem and especially the Dome of the Rock. Prime minister Menahem Begin of Israel rejected to acknowledge Arab sovereignty, but the talks ended with a (being it limited) consensus in the peace process. The consensus did not include Jerusalem (Wasserstein, 2001:238).

4.5 Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel The legal situation of Jerusalem was further complicated in 1980, when Israel’s ‘Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel’ declared Jerusalem entirely as the capital of Israel (Knesset, 1980). This declaration was the ‘legal’ basis for the annexation of the entire city of Jerusalem that took place in 1967 as part of the Six Day War (Naor, 2016). Legal is put between quotation marks because for Israel it was the legal basis, but the international community did not endorse the Basic Law. In the Camp David Accords the status of Jerusalem was not agreed upon, therefore the ‘Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel’ was not in opposition with the Oslo Accords (Naor, 2016:39). Nevertheless, the international community did not acknowledge this unilateral decision from the Israeli side. The United Nations Security Council argued that the Basic Law was at odds with international law and thus East-Jerusalem was ‘conquered territory’ (Naor, 2016:46). When in 1980 Israel declared Jerusalem as their undivided capital many Israeli government offices moved to Jerusalem. Some of these moved to East-Jerusalem by means of implementing the law to make the entire city of Jerusalem the capital of Israel (Bicchi, 2016:467). The United Nations urged the countries that still had a diplomatic office in Jerusalem to move these to Tel Aviv (Naor, 2016:46). The Israeli government responded with a statement, that the countries that would want to open a diplomatic office in Jerusalem after the implementation of the Basic Law would have to make this an

The European Union in Jerusalem 36 embassy to the state of Israel (Bicchi, 2016:467). Only the consulates of Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the United States and the Vatican remained in Jerusalem targeting Palestinian Territories by means of political protest (Bicchi, 2016:467).

What should be mentioned in relation to the different statuses of Jerusalem is that the Palestinians never claimed the entire city of Jerusalem, because Palestine mainly has historical ties to East-Jerusalem (Emmett, 1996:246). In 1987 the first intifada or uprising of Palestinians against the Israeli occupation took place. Since the Palestinians did not have a formal army, there were mainly young boys and man with rocks and stones that they threw at the Israeli army (Shoshan, 2010). In 1991 peace negotiations started in Madrid, but Jerusalem was not on the agenda of these negotiations (Wasserstein, 2001). At the same time, secret negotiations started in Oslo between Israeli and Palestinian representatives. Based on these negotiations the Oslo agreements were signed, again not solving the issue of Jerusalem (Shoshan, 2010). The Oslo agreements were signed by the Israeli prime minister and the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and were based on mutual recognition. The Oslo agreements included a five-year transition phase during which Israeli troops would withdraw from Palestinian territory. This withdrawal did not take place (Shoshan, 2010).

4.6 Second intifada The Camp David talks that took place in 1978 had a follow-up in 2000 but these were less successful. Disagreement about Jerusalem caused the eventual failure of the talks. The negotiations took place between President Clinton of the United States, Palestinian opposition leader Arafat and prime minister Barak of Israel (Wasserstein, 2001:315). Different options for the status of Jerusalem were discussed but none of them was satisfactory to all parties, especially about the Old City of Jerusalem. One of the most pressing issues was the control over the Temple Mount (for Jews) and Dome of the Rock (for Muslims) that both comprise the same location (Wasserstein, 2001:317). In the same year Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. He called this a ‘message of peace’, but Palestinians saw it as a provocation. The visit of Ariel Sharon started the second intifada. Since the second intifada in 2000 a change took place in negotiations about Jerusalem due to the possible compromise that was discussed in the second Camp David talks (Lehrs, 2016). Negotiation rounds that took place after the

37 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam second intifada were however not as substantial as the earlier negotiation processes. At present, there is no consensus between all involved parties about Jerusalem. Since 1980 Israel is the occupying power of East-Jerusalem, which is not recognized by the international community. The European Union in Jerusalem considers Jerusalem to be the corpus separatum that was part of the UN Partition Plan (Bicchi, 2016:467). In the Oslo Accords, Jerusalem is stated to be one of the final status issues. This means that both parties (Israel and Palestine) have to come to an agreement about the division of the territory between Israel and Palestine before the status of Jerusalem can be resolved (Lehrs, 2016:181).

4.7 Present The diplomatic relations with Jerusalem are still in flux. The Congress of the United States of America adopted ‘the Jerusalem Embassy Act’ in 1995. In this act the statement is made that Jerusalem should be seen as the undivided capital of Israel and consequently the embassy of the United States should be moved to Jerusalem (President Trump, 2017). Ever since the passing of this act, the different presidents have been signing waivers that would delay the move and recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. On December 6th 2017, President Trump announced that he would not sign the waiver and that the process of moving the embassy of the United States from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be started (President Trump, 2017). He stated that postponing the decision on the status of Jerusalem, did not help the peace agreements and therefore it was time to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (President Trump, 2017). The statement of Trump was opposed by Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in her speech on December 6th 2017 in Strasbourg. She stated that the European Union believes that Jerusalem should be the capital of two states in the future, clarifying the viewpoint of the European Union once again (Mogherini, 2017).

In May 2018, the embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The embassy resided in the former consulate general and over time will be turned into an actual embassy. The day of the move, May 14th, was one day before the anniversary of the Nakba, which is the displacement of Palestinian citizens with the birth of the Israeli state. Heavy protests took place especially at the Gaza Strip, leading to dozens of deaths and hundreds of wounded people on the Palestinian side of the border of the Gaza strip (Noueihed, 2018).

The European Union in Jerusalem 38 The present situation is a complex legal coexistence in which Jerusalem as corpus separatum under control of the United Nations, the division of Jerusalem by the Green Line, the Israeli occupation of East-Jerusalem and the construction of the Wall that is not built on the Green Line all coexist (Bicchi, 2016). Together with the recent developments in the position of the United States, the (diplomatic) status of Jerusalem is (again) under debate. In the following three chapters, the case of European consular diplomacy in Jerusalem will be analysed. There are three chapters, based on the sub-questions listed in chapter 3. The first of these three chapter consists of an exploration of the reasons of the European Union to be involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the contested status of Jerusalem.

39 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam

The European Union in Jerusalem 40 5. Why the European Union is involved in the conflict about Jerusalem

The question addressed in this chapter is: What are the reasons behind the involvement of the European Union and its Member States in the contested status of Jerusalem and Israel-Palestine as a whole?

This chapter focuses on reasons of the European Union to be involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine in general and the contested status of Jerusalem specifically, in order to understand the cooperation and network that exists between consulates of the Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem. The subjects discussed here are geopolitical factors that influence the position of the European Union, the importance of international law in their point of view, the role religion plays in their position and eventually critical notes of different respondents and academic sources about the involvement of the European Union.

5.1 Geopolitical factors One of the reasons why the European Union is involved in the dispute between Israel and Palestine is because they perceive the conflict to be ‘the mother of all conflicts in the Middle- East’ (Aymat, 2010:56). This means that when the conflict between Israel and Palestine is solved, peace in the Middle East will become more achievable according to the European Union (Aymat, 2010:56). In 1977, Menachem Begin won the Israeli national elections which marked the end of three decades of Labour party governments (Persson, 2018a:195). The new Likud government made claims about a ‘greater Israel’ and tension between Israel and Palestine started to rise. The conflict between Israel and Palestine was scheduled on the European political agenda in 1980, with the Venice declaration (Persson, 2018a:195).

The Venice Declaration emphasized the right to existence and security for both Israelis and Palestinians (Bouris, 2012:49). The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was mentioned as the party to be involved in the peace negotiations from the Palestinian side and the two-state solution was discussed in greater detail (Aymat, 2010:56).

41 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam In the Venice Declaration the nine members of the European Community (predecessor of the European Union) stated that the historical ties and common interests of the European Community with Israel and Palestine required them to take steps in stopping the rising tensions between Israelis and Palestinians (European Community, 1980). Until 1980 the policy of the European Community had mainly followed the lines of the United States and thus the Venice Declaration can be regarded as the first step towards an independent European policy towards the Middle-East (Bouris, 2012:49).

Before the Venice Declaration, the European Community had mainly focused on ending and withdrawing Israeli forces and settlements from the Palestinian territory (Persson, 2018a:195). The recognition of the Palestinian right to self-determination that was emphasized in the Venice Declaration was a new step towards the creation of a sustainable peace (Harpaz, 2012:459). When the Venice Declaration was signed, Israel rejected the declaration and the declaration was basically neglected by the United States (Aymat, 2010:35). The declaration stated the following about Jerusalem specifically:

“The Nine recognize the special importance of the role played by the question of Jerusalem for all the parties concerned. The Nine stress that they will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem and that any agreement on the city’s status should guarantee freedom of access for everyone to the Holy Places” (European Community, 1980:6).

‘The Nine’ refer to the Member States of the European Community, namely West- Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom (EEAS, 2018a (Webpage)).

Ever since the Venice Declaration the goal of the European Union/Community has been the creation of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The Palestinian state would comprise the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East-Jerusalem and Israel the remainders of the Palestinian territory of the British Mandate (Aymat, 2010). The hope and aim for a two-state solution still forms the basis of the decisions and actions of the European Union in Jerusalem (Interview 1 through 61).

1 These numbers correspond to table 2 about the respondents in chapter 3

The European Union in Jerusalem 42 At present, out of the nine states that signed the Venice Declaration only two states have their diplomatic representation to Palestine in Jerusalem, namely Belgium and Italy (see table 1).

The European Union forms a partnership with other countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea to achieve peace in the Mediterranean region (European Commission, 2018a (Webpage)). The Euro-Mediterranean partnership is aiming at stability, equality and peace in the Mediterranean region. The partnership between the European Union and 12 countries in North-Africa and the Middle-East, including Israel and the Palestinian territories, is in existence since 1995 (Brach, 2007:555).

For the European countries that are on the Mediterranean (mainly France, Greece, Italy, Spain) this is an extra incentive to help create a sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine. One of the respondents of the consulates representing a state that is part of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership stated that an attempt is made to be as neutral as possible in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The respondent stated that both the right to self-determination of Palestine and security of Israel are important issues in the conflict resolution. Also, the delegation of the European Union in Jerusalem was partly established as a representation of the efforts put in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. The delegation makes sure that the Palestinian Authority has an equal voice on the negotiation table and in the policy making for the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EEAS, 2016 (Webpage)).

5.2 International law According to international law when a state (in this case Israel) occupies territory (in this case Palestine), the occupation comes with certain responsibilities towards the population living in these territories. Israel is not taking these responsibilities according to, amongst others, a respondent of one of the interviews, meaning that they are in violation of international law. It is this violation of international law and problematic behaviour of Israel that decreases the possibility for the two-state solution to become reality in the coming years (Harpaz, 2012:480).

The consulates of the Member States of European Union in Jerusalem still consider Jerusalem to be the corpus separatum that was implemented as the solution for Jerusalem

43 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam in 1947 under the United Nations partition plan (Interview 1 through 6). The solution for Jerusalem is considered to be one of the final status issues of the Oslo Accords, meaning that the issue of Jerusalem is one of the thorniest issues in the conflict between Israel and Palestine and can only be solved and agreed upon when a sustainable peace has been created for the entire dispute between Israel and Palestine (Al Jazeera America, 2013).

The following statement of one of the respondents in Jerusalem about international law clarifies the position of the European Union: “We are neither pro-Israeli nor pro- Palestinian, we are pro-international law”. Violations of international law of both the Israeli and Palestinian side are opposed by the European Union ever since efforts were put in the creation of the two-state solution (Aymat, 2010). The violation of international law is one of the most important reasons why the European Union is involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

During the conversations at the consulates in Jerusalem, the aspect of international law was discussed with the respondents at the French and Swedish consulate (Interview 3,6). Because Sweden is a relatively small country in terms of population, international law is extremely important because it gives a small country such as Sweden an equal chance in the international community. Without international law, their (the Swedish and that of other smaller countries) position in the international community would be weaker (Interview 3). France is a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. Herein, France is an important advocate of international law and international law is at the core of the French international relations. In the international community (such as the United Nations), France is an active protagonist of policy building based on international law (Interview 6). France is one of the founding states of the United Nations in 1945. Since the 1950s France has been a great contributor to the ‘European project’ (Deudney & Maull, 2011). This can therefore be considered as one of the outcomes of the European position regarding international law.

5.3 Religion One of the principles of the Partition Plan of 1947 was the free access for everyone to the Holy sites that Jerusalem holds (United Nations, 1947). Part of the partition plan was that Jerusalem would become a corpus separatum under jurisdiction of the United Nations (United Nations, 1947), especially because of the Holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The European Union in Jerusalem 44 The Old City is a complicated entity. Geographically, the Old City is located in East- Jerusalem (see figure 3), but in terms of religious significance and demographic reasons the Old City requires a separate treatment. It is home to an almost equal share of Jewish and Arab citizens and hosts religious sites to Judaism, Islam and Christianity (Harpaz, 2012:458). The religious aspect of the city of Jerusalem adds an extra dimension to the consular activities of the Member States and the EEAS (Interview 2).

The respondent at the Greek consulate emphasized the importance of religion for the Greek presence in the city of Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate is the oldest Christian institution in Jerusalem (Papastathis, 2017:30). Both during the Ottoman Period and the British Mandate the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate has been present in Jerusalem due to the protection of the Christian Holy Sites (Papastathis, 2017). The establishment of the British Mandate was a good development for Greece since it prevented the possible (Roman-Catholic) interest of France and Italy in Jerusalem, because of the Sykes-Picot agreement. Therefore, the Greek continuing presence for the protection of the Holy sites was secured (Papastathis, 2017:34). Nowadays, part of the aims and activities of the Greek consulate in Jerusalem are still to secure the continuing presence of the Greek Patriarchate and the protection of the Holy sites (Interview 5). Religion and politics are intertwined and do not function separately. The respondent explained a situation in which the municipality of Jerusalem imposed a tax on the churches in Jerusalem, including churches of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. After protests the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was closed for three days. Eventually the implementation of the tax was cancelled, and the Church opened its doors again (Interview 5; Reuters, 2018).

The Belgian, Italian and French consulate are all consulates of originally Roman-Catholic states and they also started with a religious basis (Interview 2). These consulates started as religious consulates aiming at the protection of the Holy places, similar to the Greek consulate (Consulat Général de France à Jérusalem, 2017 (Webpage)). The Holy places that are present in the Old City make up an important part of the political life. The consulates of Member States of the European Union that are still present in Jerusalem chose to stay in Jerusalem after most diplomatic institutions moved their embassy in 1980, after Israel declared Jerusalem to be their undivided capital (Knesset, 1980). In the Venice Declaration of 1980, the religious status of Jerusalem was emphasized and the importance of free access to the Holy Places was stressed (European Community, 1980).

45 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam The reason for these states to keep the consulates in Jerusalem is thus still based on the religious importance of the city.

5.4 Criticism In 2017, the European Union published the ‘European Joint Strategy in Support of Palestine, 2017-2020, Towards a democratic and accountable Palestinian State’ (European Union, 2017). This document is the representation of the joint policy that the European Union has towards the development of a Palestinian state. In this document there is a statement in which the European Union describes how the European Union itself is based on values of human dignity and human rights. These values are to be translated into their partnership with Palestine. The development of the foundation of international law is also described by Harpaz (2012). A shift has taken place from the ‘law of nations’ to the ‘law of humanity’ (Harpaz, 2012:465), meaning that there is no longer a strict focus on states to be the most important actors in international law, but that the focus is shifting to human rights. In order to implement these policies and to really be an important player in the international community, the European Union as a normative power relies upon its external legitimacy. The European Union is trying to create the external legitimacy partly through showing their heavy reliance on international law (Harpaz, 2012).

Fayrouz, Benjamin Weinthal and the respondent at the Swedish consulate all stated that the Palestinian problem receives less attention when an event in the Middle-Eastern region takes place. For example, the war in Syria led to a decreased amount of attention in Palestine (Interview 3,7,8). Moreover, it is very costly to keep investing in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict when there seems to be no improvement in the situation, even though efforts are made to keep peace negotiations in place. This is the reason why countries decided to cut back on the funding for Palestine when it is needed elsewhere (Interview 7,8).

The majority of states around the world do not see the partition plan and related corpus separatum scheme as binding. Therefore, the perception of the European Union that the corpus separatum is the last internationally binding legal status of Jerusalem is not shared by the rest of the world (Harpaz, 2012:470). Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) was

The European Union in Jerusalem 46 rejected in legal terms by all the relevant parties, except by the future Jewish state (now Israel), because it was considered a nonbinding and soft resolution (Harpaz, 2012: 470). Benjamin Weinthal, journalist of the Jerusalem Post, (Interview 8) sees it as some sort of arrogance of Europe to see themselves as having a valid voice in resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine and Jerusalem specifically and interpreting the legal status of Jerusalem in their own way. Moreover, he says that this might have to do with the fact that there is still a high sense of guilt in Europe about the Holocaust and that the European Union is trying to impose ‘the lessons they learned from the Holocaust’ on Israel (Interview 8). What Benjamin Weinthal described was that he is wondering why the European Union is so involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine at all, it being a ‘relatively small conflict’ (Interview 8). This is contradictory to the European Union that sees it as the ‘mother of all conflicts’ (Aymat, 2010:56). Weinthal questions the lack of external validity that the European Union needs in order to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thus does not acknowledge the position of the European Union that is derived from their reliance on international law (Interview 8).

Another more critical note on the involvement of the European Union came from Fayrouz of the organization Grassroots Jerusalem. This NGO started with money from the European Union. As discussed in chapter 2, part of the state building work of the European Union is to support local civil society (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:762). What Fayrouz explained was that the money and funding from the European Union came with conditions and a set of rules. The NGO was not free to do what they wanted in order to achieve a satisfying situation for Palestinian citizens. One of the conditions was that the newly born organization of Grassroots Jerusalem would map all the Palestinian communities in Jerusalem. Fayrouz (Interview 7) stated that this was in the own interest of the European Union to simply know where all the communities are, so that is was known which communities to fund and target. Grassroots Jerusalem did not have the freedom to do what they perceived to be best for Palestine, but the European Union imposed their believes on the new NGO (Interview 7).

The structural help with creating the NGO and mapping the communities eventually turned into project-based help that was used to give humanitarian aid without doing something about the cause of the actual problems, called the territorial dispute.

47 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam “It is not only about whether we call this East-Jerusalem or the Eastern part of occupied Jerusalem, it is not only about the jargon, it is not only about the discourse. It is about where this money is going and what it is funding. And the main problem when it comes to international aid is that donors treat Palestine as struck by a natural disaster” (Interview 7).

The respondents at the consulates of Member States in Jerusalem express that the main goal of their work is building a Palestinian state. The financial aid is thus given to stir in the direction of creating a state and offer political support and not to give humanitarian aid. Because of the strong believes in the two-state solution, the ultimate goal is to build a Palestinian state in order to establish an actual voice in negotiations between Israel and Palestine (Interview 1 through 6). In the next chapter, the aims of the consulates and EEAS in Jerusalem will be explored further.

The European Union in Jerusalem 48 6. The aims and actions of the consulates

The question addressed in this chapter is: What are the main aims of the consulates regarding the contested status of Jerusalem and how does this relate to their location in Jerusalem?

In a contested city, such as Jerusalem, diplomatic choices have certain implications. As Bicchi (2016:467) explained, the consulates located in Jerusalem are seen as the consular corps of the corpus seperatum. This means that their mere presence in Jerusalem has a political implication because it reflects their position in the status of Jerusalem. In this chapter, this location will be further analysed and the actions taken by the consulates of the Member States of the European Union and EEAS will be investigated in further detail.

The article of Bicchi (2016), amongst other literature, will be combined with the interviews conducted in Jerusalem to address the sub-question of this chapter. First, practical information about the years of establishment of the consulates will be discussed. After that, the link between the actions and the corpus separatum scheme will be discussed. The last two paragraphs will be about internal disunity inside the European Union and state building efforts for the Palestinian state.

6.1 Establishment The delegation of the European Union in Jerusalem was established in 1994. In 2009 the delegation became an EEAS, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty (Drieskens, 2012). To Israeli authorities, the EEAS is called the EU Technical Assistance Office, because it has a more innocent connotation (Interview 1). Because the EEAS is not established as an official delegation of the European Union to Palestine, the EEAS could circumvent the rules imposed by Israel in the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (Bicchi, 2016: 467).

Since the establishment of the EEAS in Jerusalem, the main aim has been to improve the Palestinian voice in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The other aim of the EEAS in Jerusalem is to coordinate the other delegations of the Member States in Jerusalem (EEAS, 2016 (Webpage)). There is a large EU assistance program to the Palestinians and an extensive cooperation between the delegations of the European Union Member States, about which more will be explained in chapter 7.

49 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam The separate delegations of the European Union in Jerusalem all have their own history, but all delegations were established before the state of Israel was founded (Interview 1 through 6).

The British consulate was established in 1839, which was one of the precursors of the establishment of the British mandate. During the British Mandate, the Palestinian territory was divided into different districts, each with their own District Commissioner (UK in Jerusalem, n.y. (Webpage)). The first British Consul General in Jerusalem was appointed in 1948, after the British Mandate ended. The current building of the consulate of the United Kingdom (in East-Jerusalem) was finalized in 1968 (UK in Jerusalem, n.y. (Webpage)).

In the case of France, there has been an operating consulate general since the mid- nineteenth century and even before that France has been active in the protection of the Holy places in the city of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Because of the colonization of France in Africa, the French consulate has had an important function in the region, especially during the time of the Ottoman empire (Consulat Général de France à Jérusalem, 2017 (Webpage)). By establishing the consulate general in the region, the diplomatic presence in the solution of the developing conflict between Israel and Palestine was consolidated (Consulat Général de France à Jérusalem, 2017 (Webpage)). The current building of the French consulate was constructed in 1930.

The Belgian, Italian and Spanish consulates also started as protectors of the Holy sites in Jerusalem. Later, their statuses changed. The consulate of Belgium has been in the city since 1931 as a consulate general (Interview 2) but was already active since the mid- nineteenth century as an honorary consul (Consulaat-Generaal van België in Jeruzalem, n.y. (Webpage)). An honorary consul is generally a resident of the host state. Honorary are consuls are only with practical matters such as visas and are not involved with politics at all (Rana, 2016:153) The Spanish consulate was founded in 1854 and started to develop into a consulate general in 1913 (Kinoshita, 2016; Mazza, 2016). The consulate of Italy opened its doors in the mid-nineteenth century as a consulate from the kingdom of Sardinia (Interview 4). The building in which the Italian consulate is located now has been built in the 1940s and was used by the Italian consulate immediately after the construction was completed. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate is the oldest Christian

The European Union in Jerusalem 50 community in Palestine (as discussed in chapter 5). The Greek consulate plays a significant part in the relation between politics and religion in the city of Jerusalem (Papastathis, 2017). The current Greek consulate general was established in 1862 (Consulate General of Greece in Jerusalem, n.y. (Webpage)).

Although Sweden is not part of the originally Roman-Catholic consulates (see chapter 5), the establishment of the Swedish consulate in Jerusalem also has a religious basis. There was a group of religious Swedes at the end of the 19th century in Jerusalem that established an honorary consul. In 1991 they turned this into a consulate general. In 1980 the Israeli government issued a law that stated that new diplomatic offices in Jerusalem had to be serving Israel and not Palestine (Knesset, 1980). The Swedish consulate general was established after this as the only new diplomatic office that served Palestine, because they already had an honorary consul in Jerusalem, before the Basic Law was implemented (Interview 1,3).

6.2 Corpus separatum The consulates are spread over East- and West-Jerusalem, but they are all serving Palestine. All the consulates of the Member States and the EEAS expressed that they consider themselves to be the protectors of the corpus separatum during the interviews (Interview 1 through 6; Bicchi, 2016). The interviewee at the Italian consulate (Interview 4) explained that the location of the Italian consulate might not necessarily be a political move but is historically determined, indicating that the consulate has been at this location before the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The Italian consulate is located in West- Jerusalem, which is de facto part of Israel (Harpaz, 2012).

Besides the protection of the corpus separatum, the consulates and the EEAS all stated that their work is mainly done to achieve the two-state solution for the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine. This position has been emphasized again last year in relation to the declaration of President Trump of the United States that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel (Mogherini, 2017).

The consulates of the Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem have a different status than consulates in other cities. This has to do with the Oslo Accords and the unique (legal) status of Jerusalem. After the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the consulates

51 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam that were still in Jerusalem got the jurisdiction as de facto representative bodies to the Palestinian territory (comprising the West Bank, Gaza strip and East-Jerusalem) (Consolato Generale d'Italia Gerusalemme, n.y. (Webpage)). The consulates started to function similarly to embassies in terms of politics and bilateral contact, only officially they were never turned into embassies. The locations of the consulates are spread over West- and East-Jerusalem, as you can see on figure 3. It should be emphasized once again that the consulates are all responsible for communication with the Palestinian Authority, also the ones located in West-Jerusalem, which is de facto seen as part of Israel (Bicchi, 2016:467).

Figure 3 shows that the consulates general of Italy, Greece and France are located in West-Jerusalem. The consulates general of Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom and Sweden are located in East-Jerusalem. Spain, Britain, Italy and France each have a cooperation centre in Jerusalem. These centres are branches of the development cooperation companies of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of their home states (AECID, n.y.; DFID, n.y.; ITCOOP, n.y.; SCAC, 2016). The consulates general of Member States are part of the diplomatic network of the European Union in Jerusalem, which these centres are not. The cooperation centres, are more involved with creating a sustainable cooperation between the separate Member States and the Palestinian Authority and have a more practical base instead of political motives (AECID, n.y.; DFID, n.y.; ITCOOP, n.y.; SCAC, 2016).

Greece also has another location in the city. This is not a cooperation centre, but a location in the Old City that mainly deals with visa applications. This consular office is deliberately located in the Old City in order to balance the locations between East- and West-Jerusalem. On figure 3 the cooperation centres and Greek location in the Old City are also portrayed. It shows the spread over West- and East Jerusalem. These locations are considered to be the representation of the corpus separatum and the position regarding the two-state solution (Interview 1 through 6, Bicchi (2016).

The European Union in Jerusalem 52 Figure 3: Map of Jerusalem with 1967 border and consulates of the European Union. Source: Basemap; Esri, Locations; notes of researcher

53 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam 6.3 Council conclusions Although the commitment to the corpus separatum and the goal to construct a two-state solution is one of the foundations of the choices for location, the speed of establishing this solution is limited. The European Union wants to construct a sustainable peace that is established through negotiations and agreement between all different parties involved as opposed to enforcing certain policies or using force (one of the interviewees). Their actions are partly focused on increasing the visibility on European presence of the European Union in Jerusalem and the wider territory of Palestine and Israel. An example of this is the visit of the Heads of Missions of the diplomatic representation in Jerusalem and Ramallah and of the EEAS to the West Bank. On May 16th 2018 the Heads of Missions visited the Bedouin community Khan al-Ahmar that is facing the threat of demolition by the Israeli authorities (EEAS, 2018b). These visits increase the visibility of the European Union in the region and show the position in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. In the press release of the office of the representative of the European Union in the West Bank the following is stated about the demolition of the community: “Displacing the community would be in contravention with Israel's obligations as an occupying power under international humanitarian law” (EEAS, 2018b).

According to the respondent at the EEAS, the internal division between the Member States of the European Union on the conflict between Israel and Palestine is one of the biggest issues so far in implementing a common policy. Since 2016, there have been no more Council Conclusions on the Middle-Eastern peace process. “Council Conclusions are used to identify specific issues of concern for the EU and outline particular actions to take or goals to reach” (European Council, 2018 (Webpage). Two of the respondents expressed their concern for the fact that the last Council Conclusions about the Middle- Eastern peace process have been drawn two years ago. This shows that there is no consensus about what further actions can be taken (two of the interviewees). One of them stated that if there would have been possible developments towards the recognition of Palestine within the European Union, new Council Conclusions would have been formulated, in which these developments would have been consolidated. The internal disunity of the European Union is partly contributable to the fact that there are now 28 Member States as opposed to the Nine Member States that were part of the European Community in 1980, when the Venice Declaration was signed (one of the interviewees).

The European Union in Jerusalem 54 In the last Council Conclusions, which were published in 2016, once again the position regarding the two-state solution was emphasized. However, there is a clear statement about the viability of the two-state solution:

“To this end, the EU will continue to closely monitor developments on the ground and their broader implications and will consider further action in order to protect the viability of the two-state solution, which is constantly eroded by new facts on the ground” (Council of the European Union, 2016: 1).

The monitoring of developments on the ground is partly done by the European consulates in Jerusalem and Ramallah. This is done through joint reporting about the situation in East-Jerusalem and more broadly about settlements and demolitions in the West Bank (Bicchi, 2016). More about this will follow in chapter 7.

6.4 State building A substantial part of the work of the European Union in Jerusalem and the entire Palestinian Territory is dedicated to building a solid Palestinian state. Sweden recognized the Palestinian state and they are the only Member State present in Jerusalem to do so (Interview 3). In order to make the Palestinian position stronger, recognizing Palestine as a state was considered a necessary move, especially to give the Palestinian people more hope for the future and trust in the international community (Persson, 2018b). Collectively, the European Union did not recognize the Palestinian state yet. The recognition of the Palestinian state is more a matter of ‘when’ it will happen than ‘if’ it will happen according to one of the interviewees.

Currently there are 137 states around the world that Palestine has a bilateral recognition agreement with (Permanent Observer Mission of State of Palestine to the United Nations, 2018). The European Union wants to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state when the time is right and when the authorities and Palestinian institutions are ready (Interview 1). The recognition needs to take place on a moment that will be constructive for the peacebuilding process (two of the interviewees). The Palestinian Authority (de facto government of Palestine) has been recognized by the international community in the Oslo Accords as being the authority that is responsible for the Palestinians (Interview 1 through

55 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam 6). Therefore, the question remains: why did the European Union not acknowledge a Palestinian state yet? There are multiple answers to this question.

In 2011, the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund praised the improvement of the economic circumstances and institution building in Palestine. However, this growth has not been linear, to some extent due to Israeli policy (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:767). For example, during the second intifada Israeli troops destroyed a substantial part of Palestinian infrastructure and government institutions (Bouris, 2012:79). Some Member States recognized the Palestinian state before they joined the European Union, such as Malta and Cyprus and some Central-European countries that inherited the recognition from the Soviet period (Persson, 2018b). In statements regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine the main argument used by the European Union about the recognition of Palestine is that the European Union wants the recognition to contribute to the peace negotiations (Persson, 2018b). A recognition by the entire European Union of the Palestinian state should therefore be part of a peace process or lead up to it (Persson, 2018b).

The international community is currently taking over the responsibility to take care of citizens in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in terms of giving monetary aid and support in the state building process (Interview 1). The Swedish recognition did not change anything and is only considered to be a nice gesture to the Palestinians, according to Fayrouz of Grassroots Jerusalem (Interview 7). According to both Fayrouz of Grassroots Jerusalem (Interview 7) and another interviewee it might be an ‘easy way out’ for Israel if Palestine was recognized as a state. As explained earlier, the occupying power (Israel) is responsible for the citizens in the territories it occupies. According to Fayrouz, when the Palestinians are seen as people with their own authority and self-determination it would take the responsibility away from Israel. The current relation between Israel and Palestine is asymmetrical because of the status of Israel as an occupying power. If Palestine would be recognized, this asymmetrical relation would become more equal. However, a more equal relationship would not necessarily mean that the situation on the ground would change (Interview 7). The cooperative actions taken by the European Union to promote state building and to support Palestinians will be discussed in the next chapter.

The European Union in Jerusalem 56 7. How the consulates of Member States of the European Union cooperate in Jerusalem

The sub-question addressed in this chapter is: How is the cooperation of the consulates and EEAS constructed and what are the outcomes?

So far, what has been discussed is the background of the involvement of the European Union in the conflict about Jerusalem and the wider context of Israel and Palestine and the aims of the consulates in Jerusalem that derive from it. In this chapter, the cooperation and network that exists between the consulates of the Member States in Jerusalem will be further elaborated on.

According to one of the interviewees there is a certain extent of cooperation in every city around the world that hosts delegations of the European Union. Jerusalem however is a different type of city because of the religious significance for different religions, the status of corpus separatum and because of the conflict between Israel and Palestine in which Jerusalem is one of the thorniest issues. This chapter will highlight the different forms of cooperation that exists between the consulates of Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem. The chapter will start with an example of a common European policy regarding Israel. Then, there will be a part about financial aid. Next, a paragraph about practical issues concerning the cooperation between consulates will follow. The chapter will end with further elaboration on the joint political reporting of the delegations of the European Union in Jerusalem.

7.1 Labelling An example of the outcome of cooperation of the European Union and their interpretation of international law is the labelling of products that come from settlements on the West Bank. These settlements are part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israeli sovereignty over these territories is not recognized by the European Union (European Commission, 2015). In 2015, the European Parliament passed a resolution that stated that products made in settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT, comprising the West Bank, Gaza strip and East-Jerusalem) should be labelled as such (Emmott, 2016). This means that a label that specifically says that the product is produced in an

57 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Israeli settlement is required. According to the European Union, there can simply not be a label with ‘Made in Israel’ on products that are produced in the OPT (Emmott, 2016).

The European Union has a privileged trading relationship with Israel, not comprising the settlements in the OPT (European Commission, 2015). Products that come from the OPT are subject to European guidelines about labelling and about transparency towards citizens and consumers (Shalem, 2015). The labelling is not a ban or boycott, it is about being honest to European consumers about where products come from. Each of the 28 Member States of the European Union is responsible for the enforcement of the resolution about the labelling in their own state (Ravid, 2015).

The European Union has trade agreements with both Israel and Palestine. However, trade with Israel is more extensive than trade with Palestine. The European Commission states the following about trading with Palestine:

“The EU believes that greater trade with Europe can offer a potential source of economic growth and stability for Palestine. The EU works closely with Israel and other Southern Mediterranean partners in an effort to improve Palestinian access to international markets.” (European Commission, 2018b Webpage)).

Trade with Palestine is therefore seen as supportive in the creation of a Palestinian state. However, for the most part, the Palestinian economy is depended on the bigger Israeli economy. Israeli ports are still the main gateway to the Palestinian economy, since Palestine has very limited access to ports in, for example, Egypt and Lebanon (Elagraa et al., 2004).

The labelling of products that come from the settlements in OPT is called anti-Semitic by Benjamin Weinthal (Interview 8) because it is treating Israeli (Jewish) products different from other products. According to him, this is the definition of anti-Semitism. The European Union is distinguishing products that come from Israeli territory from products that come from settlements in the West Bank. According to the international community, the latter is not part of Israel itself. Israel on the other hand argues that this is the first step towards a boycott for all Israeli products (Shalem, 2015).

The European Union in Jerusalem 58 7.2 Financial aid In 2016, EU funding to Palestine had an amount of €291.1 million. €170.5 million was spend on direct financial support for state-building purposes such as social development and infrastructure through PEGASE (European Commission, 2016b (Webpage)). PEGASE is an institution built by the European Union from which money goes directly to the Palestinian authority and is controlled by the Palestinian Prime Minister. It bypasses institutions in the Gaza Strip (Aymat, 2010:44). €82 million was spend on the Palestinian refugee problem through the United Nations Relief and Works for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The remaining €38,6 million has been spend on support to economic enablers (€20 million), support to East-Jerusalem (€10,5 million) and support to governance (€8.1 million) (European Commission, 2016b (Webpage)).

UNRWA is partly funded with money from the United Nations, but for the biggest part with money from national governments and the European Union (Interview 1). The European Union is one of the biggest funders of UNRWA. Between 2010 and 2016, 42 percent of the funding of UNRWA came from the European Union and its Member States (UNRWA Brussels, n.y.). Recently the United States cut back their funding and might stop funding in the future (Interview 1; Al Jazeera, 2018). In 2018 the United States donated $60 million to UNRWA, whereas the contribution in 2017 was $350 million (Commissioner General UNRWA Pierre Krähenbühl, 2018). This has direct consequences for millions of refugees depending on funding of UNRWA. President Trump of the United States published a series of tweets that said that they kept giving money to Palestine but got no appreciation or respect in return (Al Jazeera, 2018). It seems to be a political move of the United States that came not so long after the announcement to move the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (Al Jazeera, 2018; Commissioner General UNRWA Pierre Krähenbühl, 2018). According to the respondent at the EEAS in Jerusalem, UNRWA will therefore become more dependent on the funding of the European Union (Interview 1).

Explained by the interviewee at the EEAS there is joint programming between the consulates and Member States in general of the European Union in the developmental aid system. This is done in order to make sure that there is no double work and that everybody has their own responsibilities. The aid that is being given to Palestine has different aspects.

59 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Part of the aid is given to secure the Palestinian voice and presence in East-Jerusalem, according to one of the respondents. As the respondent at the Greek consulate explained there is a network of aid programs between the consulates. Because of the poor economic circumstances in Greece of the last years, the developmental and humanitarian aid to Palestine over the last years has been cut back. However, Greece was still in the network of consulates during these circumstances, enabling Greece to start up the developmental aid whenever the Greek budget allows this (Interview 5).

7.3 Diplomatic protection in East-Jerusalem All of the representatives of the consulates during the conversations stated that they did not have contact with the municipality of Jerusalem on a regular basis. In the case of for example Italy, there are sometimes meetings or contact moments only about practical issues such as parking spots (Interview 4). Another matter is protection that consular officers and other officials from the sending state should receive, according to the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs (Cusomano, 2017:31). Since Jerusalem is a contested city, the protection in the different parts of the city comes from different sources. The municipality formally became responsible for the citizens of East-Jerusalem, but did not acknowledge this responsibility, as stated before. The European Union states the following about the responsibility of Israel in the 2017 Annual Action Program of the European Union in favour of Palestine:

“East Jerusalem has traditionally served as the focus of political, commercial, religious and cultural life for the population of Palestine. Since the 1967 occupation and its illegal annexation by the Israeli government in 1980, East Jerusalem (EJ) depends de facto on the Israeli municipality for its governance and the delivery of public services. The European Union has regularly recalled that it never recognized the 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem and reaffirmed its commitment to Jerusalem as the future capital of two states. Pending a final status agreement, East Jerusalem should remain an integral part of Palestine and should be maintained as the social, economic, political and cultural hub for Palestinians” (European Commission, 2017).

The European Union in Jerusalem 60 According to this statement, the Israeli authorities have deliberately been trying to separate East-Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank in order to stimulate the integration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This is done with for example the separation barrier and strategic placing of settlements in East-Jerusalem (European Commission, 2017).

As an occupying power of East-Jerusalem, Israel is obliged to offer international protection during the visit of an official (Interview 1,3; Bicchi, 2016:470). The respondent at the EEAS stated that officials of the European Union refuse the Israeli security when an official comes to East-Jerusalem, including the Old City. This is done in order to prevent European officials from having their picture taken while smiling at an important site in the Old City surrounded by Israeli security officials (Bicchi, 2016:470). According to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority does not have official jurisdiction over the Old City and therefore cannot offer the security needed for an official. The only option is to bring own security if a government official visits the Old City or the rest of East- Jerusalem (Interview 1). Over recent years, the rise of terrorism and increasing diplomatic activity in violent areas have caused an increase in the demand for private security companies to guarantee the security of diplomatic premises and personnel (Cusumano, 2017). Especially the United States have been using private security companies over the last years to protect their diplomatic offices and personnel (Cusumano, 2017). Diplomatic activity in contested areas or dangerous environments requires an extra source of security on top of the security of the host state. In the Old City of Jerusalem however the difficult issue of security is mainly avoided by not making any official visits to the Old City at all (Bicchi, 2016:470).

7.4 Diplomatic network Bicchi (2016) researched the community of practice that is present in Jerusalem between the different consulates of Member States of the European Union. This is based on different aspects of cooperation and the fact that these consulates see themselves as the ‘protectors of the corpus separatum’ (Interview 1 trough 6). This status is one of the foundations of the network between the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem. There are meetings twice a month between all the Heads of Missions and between all the Heads of the political sections of the representations in both Jerusalem and Ramallah (Interview 1 through 6). The difference between the representative offices in Jerusalem and Ramallah

61 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam is that the consulates general in Jerusalem consider themselves to be protectors of the corpus separatum and the delegations in Ramallah do not have this status. The meetings are supervised by the Head of Mission and Head of Political of the EEAS in Jerusalem respectively, the EEAS in Jerusalem coordinates both the missions in Jerusalem and in Ramallah (Interview 1 trough 6). One of the aspects on which the EEAS and Head of Mission collaborate, in for example these meetings, is joint reporting between the Heads of Missions of the consulates in Jerusalem and diplomatic representation in Ramallah to the capital cities in the home states and the EEAS in Brussels (Bicchi, 2016). The reports consists of an overview of the situation on the ground and policy recommendations for the European Union in Brussels (Bicchi, 2016).

The chapters in the report are divided between the consulates. The reports are drafted and approved by every Head of Mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah. The information is received from NGOs and other local people in the host state that can help retrieve valuable information and can be used as a base for European Union policies. After a draft is constructed, the report is discussed in a meeting where every sentence is addressed until all involved parties are satisfied and approve of the content (Interview 3). After this meeting, the report is send to the governments in the home states and the EEAS in Brussels where further policies will be decided upon. These reports used to be open access but became confidential in 2005. The main reason is the occasional politically sensitive information in the reports that can be misinterpreted and might not be in line with policy coming from the European Union in Brussels (Bicchi, 2016:472). However, at times the reports are leaked. For example, the report from 2014 can be found on the internet. In this report several issues are addresses, for example ‘Transport and Infrastructure’ and ‘Religion’. The status of these topics in East-Jerusalem is discussed. Throughout the reports there are references to the separation barrier and how the barrier influences the status of East-Jerusalem and diminishes its connection to the rest of the West Bank. Similarly, the continuing placement of settlements in and around East-Jerusalem is referred to (Heads of Missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah, 2014). During the conversation with Dimitris Bouris (researcher at the University of Amsterdam) the reports were called ‘amazing’ because they are useful sources for the construction of policies in Brussels and capital cities of home states (Interview 9).

The European Union in Jerusalem 62 Moreover, there are reports that are published twice a year specifically about settlements in the West Bank (including East-Jerusalem) and one about demolitions in the West Bank (including East-Jerusalem). These reports about demolitions and settlements are made by the EEAS in Jerusalem alone and sent to Brussels afterwards (Interview 2,3,5). The embassies and the EEAS in Tel Aviv also draft reports that are sent to the capitals or to Brussels (Interview 2,3). The interviewees from all the consulates explained that the consulates in Jerusalem function as separate entities from the embassies in Tel Aviv. In some cases, there is joint reporting on certain issues, but there is no communication through Tel Aviv to the home states. However, there is direct communication from the consulates in Jerusalem to the home states (Interview 2 trough 6). Contact with the European Union in Brussels always has to go through either the capital in the home state or the EEAS in Jerusalem and never straight from the consulate to the European Union in Brussels (Interview 2 through 6).

For example, the declaration of president Trump of the United States about moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was followed up by a statement of Federica Mogherini (the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) in which the viewpoint of the European Union was repeated about the two-state solution. When a question was asked to the representatives of the consulates in Jerusalem and the EEAS about the involvement in the construction of the answer on behalf of the European Union the clear answer was ‘no, we have not been involved in that’ (Interview 1 through 6). This is partly due to the statement not being any different than the general viewpoint about the two-state solution. However, there is also another reason. All the interviewees at the consulates said that they are not part of issuing statements that come from Brussels in general. Only local statements are drafted by the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem themselves. These are statements concerning individual cases such as specific (home)demolitions executed by Israeli authorities or cases with disproportional violence against children or adults (e.g. EEAS, 2018c; EEAS, 2018d). In case of the statement about the move of Trump, the consulates were not involved because it was on a higher political level than a local statement. Governments of the Member States gave the necessary publicity to the statement in order to reproduce the statement of the entire European Union as also being the viewpoint of the separate Member State (Interview 5). For example, the Belgium ministry of foreign affairs published a statement on the website about the condemnation of the decision of President

63 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Trump and the continuing efforts of both the European Union and Belgium in the achievement of the two-state solution (Buitenlandse Zaken, Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, 2017).

The actions of the European Union are thus mainly aimed at building a Palestinian state and creating a peaceful two-state solution. The diplomatic network in Jerusalem between the consulates of Member States of the European Union and the EEAS is cooperating in order to establish this solution. The next chapter will consist of the conclusion, a discussion of the findings and recommendations for further research.

The European Union in Jerusalem 64 8. Conclusion

The main research question of this research is: How is the position of the European Union and its Member States on the contested status of Jerusalem reflected in the consular diplomatic presence and their mutual network? The research question has been addressed via sub-questions. The questions were addressed through a combination of information gathered through conducted interviews, analysis of policy documents and the use of (academic) literature. This study had a qualitative approach and it created a thick description of European consular diplomacy in Jerusalem. In order to address the research question(s), the theoretical framework consisted of an exploration of European Foreign Policy, consular diplomacy and contested and divided territories. Together with the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the contested status of Jerusalem, these concepts formed the basis of this study.

8.1. Conclusion The results have been analyzed in the form of three sub-questions. The first sub-question is about the reasons for the involvement of the European Union in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in the contested status of Jerusalem. The reasons are mainly based on international law and religion. The majority of consulates has been involved in the protection of the Holy sites ever since the establishment of the consulates in Jerusalem. The position regarding international law is mainly derived from the fact that Israel is not taking enough responsibility over the citizens in the territories it occupies in the Palestine territory. According to international law, Israel is obliged to take this responsibility.

The second question was related to the aims that derived from these reasons. The aims are mainly related to the protection of Jerusalem as the corpus separatum and the creation of a two-state solution. The two-state solution is considered to be the best solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the entire European Union. The location of the consulates in Jerusalem is a representation of the position regarding the corpus separatum since the consulates and EEAS are spread over West- and East-Jerusalem, but they all serve Palestine as well as Israel. In order to create a sustainable two-state solution, the European Union is supporting Palestinian state building.

65 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Lastly, the actions taken by the European Union for the establishment of the two-state solution and the protection of the corpus separatum were discussed in the third sub- question. These actions are executed on the higher level of the European Union and on the lower level in Jerusalem itself. On the higher level, the European Union implemented a policy that obliged Israeli producers to label products that are produced in Israeli settlements as such. Another outcome of cooperation within the European Union is financial aid. On the higher level, financial aid is going through organizations such as PEGASE and UNRWA. On the lower level, there is a network of cooperation between the delegations. One of the outcomes of the network of cooperation is joint reporting between the Heads of Missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah. These reports are used in Brussels for policy making regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the status of Jerusalem.

In 1980, the Israeli government established the Basic Law about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Part of this law was that diplomatic offices for Palestine could no longer be established in Jerusalem. Consequently, many European Union Member States opened a delegation in Ramallah, instead of Jerusalem. The delegations of the Member States of the European Union remained in Jerusalem by means of political protest. In 1993, with the Oslo Accords, they got official jurisdiction to function as delegations to Palestine. However, they are still called consulates but are acting similarly to embassies. By having an official status as consulates and not as embassies, the delegations seem to be tolerated by the Israeli government. This tolerance allows them to practice the state-building efforts for the Palestinian state.

The location of the consulates of Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem has multi-layered implications. First, the European Union still considers Jerusalem to be the corpus separatum that was part of the United Nations Partition plan of 1947 and that divided the Palestinian Territory over Israel and Palestine. Second, the European Union considers a two-state solution as the best solution for the conflict, meaning that Israel and a future Palestinian state would each have their own territory and live side by side in peace. Jerusalem should be the shared capital of these two states. Third, the status of Jerusalem is one of the final status issues, based on the Oslo Accords, which means that the status of Jerusalem is to be solved when the entire conflict between Israel and Palestine has come to a solution.

The European Union in Jerusalem 66

The consulates are spread over West- and East- Jerusalem and all consulates function to serve Palestine and the entire city of Jerusalem (both East and West). However, the corpus separatum scheme (1947) was never recognized by Palestine. The fact that the European Union considers the corpus separatum to be the leading scheme in Jerusalem conflicts with their position in bilateral contact with the Palestinian Authorities. The internal division of the European Union contributes to the limited influence of the consulates of Member States of the European Union on the status of Jerusalem. The influence of the consulates as protectors of the corpus separatum is relatively limited, because there are only nine out of 28 states that are considered to have this protective status. The Venice Declaration (this was the first official declaration of the European Union with relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) was signed by 9 Member States of the European Community. The first establishment of a policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and contested status of Jerusalem thus had a different scope than now. With 28 Member States the decision-making processes and consensus building is a lot more complicated.

The main practical outcome of the network of consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem is the joint reporting to the European Union in Brussels. These reports are meant to create a complete overview of the situation in East-Jerusalem and of settlements and (home) demolitions in the wider region of the West Bank. Once sent to the EEAS in Brussels, they are combined with, for example, similar reports coming from the representations of Member States of the European Union and the EEAS in Tel Aviv. Eventual policies and statements are made at the European Union offices in Brussels, with the help of these reports. However, the joint reports of the Member States and the EEAS in Jerusalem have a limited influence since they are combined with reports from other delegations to form a policy. An example of this is the statement made by the EU following on the declaration of President Trump of the US to move the embassy of the United States from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The European consulates in Jerusalem have not been directly involved in formulating this statement.

In conclusion, the mutual network of the delegations of the Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem allows the creation of a unified voice between the present consulates and EEAS. The scope of influence of the delegations is relatively limited due to bureaucratic layers and the fact that there is a limited number of delegations in

67 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Jerusalem compared to the entire number of Member States of the European Union. The location of the consulates in Jerusalem seems to be a reflection of the position of the consulates themselves (protectors of the corpus separatum) rather than a reflection of the general point of view regarding the future, which is the two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital between Israel and Palestine. Because of the internal division within the European Union about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the contested status of Jerusalem the external sovereignty of the European Union remains limited.

8.2 Discussion Overall, the research process went quite smooth. The amount of information gathered through the interviews was sufficient for this thesis. The used methods in this study were very suitable. The interviews with the representatives of the consulates of Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem and the EEAS provided great insight to the subject. The analysis of policy documents and use of academic literature provided the right combination of information for this study. A downside of the interviews that have been conducted for this study is that they were all taking place within the ‘bubble’ of European Union, except for Benjamin Weinthal and Fayrouz. Involving more respondents with a different point of view could contribute to a more complete study.

This study is of societal and academic value. The societal value is mainly attached to the current relevance of the subject. Diplomacy in Jerusalem has been under attention the last months because of the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem. The response of the European Union and the position of the actual diplomatic representations of the European Union in Jerusalem are a relevant subject to research. The European Union was quick in presenting (repeating) their standpoint in the contested status of Jerusalem. Whether the delegations of the European Union were part of the formulation of this statement provides an inside into the organization within the European Union. To the academic field, this research added a study about diplomacy in the contested city of Jerusalem. Bicchi (2016) wrote an article about cooperation between consulates of the European Union in Jerusalem. Bicchi related this to the community of practice that exists on the local level in Jerusalem. This thesis is different in the sense that it provided more insight into the practices regarding diplomacy in Jerusalem and has a more political point of view and connects politics with location.

The European Union in Jerusalem 68 This study is comprised of many different elements, such as international law, European Foreign Policy, Consular diplomacy, the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the contested status of Jerusalem. Though these concepts have been discussed in this thesis, a deeper knowledge of this subjects could have contributed to a better understanding of the research subject and the implications of the outcomes. For example, an exploration about the basis of international law could have been added to this study since the European Union regards international law as one of the most important foundations in their foreign policy. Nevertheless, the concepts have all been used in a way that contributes to the research.

Another limitation of this thesis is that unfortunately not all relevant actors could be interviewed or contacted. The Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority were contacted, but no response has been received. The Municipality of Jerusalem has been contacted but they considered the point of view of the municipality to be irrelevant and were therefore not willing to schedule a meeting. Also, the EEAS in Brussels has repeatedly been contacted, but no reply was received. No one at the consulates of Spain and the United Kingdom in Jerusalem had time for an interview. Nevertheless, based on the available information and the conversations with the consulates and EEAS in Jerusalem, both Spain and the United Kingdom do not seem to have a role in the network that is significantly different from the other delegations. However, a conversation with the United Kingdom might have been interesting because of the history of the British Mandate. Moreover, the current developments regarding the Brexit might influence the position of the United Kingdom in the network of the European Union in Jerusalem. If the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, they might also leave the network of the European Union in Jerusalem.

For this study it was not possible to involve delegations of Member States of the European Union in Ramallah and/or Tel Aviv. There was a limited amount of time available for this study. Only the involvement of delegations in Jerusalem was within the scope of this research. Since there is cooperation with the delegations in Ramallah, this could provide extra insights in the network between delegations of the European Union and their relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the contested status of Jerusalem.

69 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam 8.3 Further Research For further research, multiple options would be interesting. First, it would be interesting to involve more points of views to this subject. As described, multiple relevant actors for this study have been addressed but eventually not talked to. Another interesting addition to the subject would be more involvement of the Palestinian point of view. The consulates and EEAS in this research consider themselves to be helping to build a Palestinian state. However, the respondent at Grassroots Jerusalem opposed this. The involvement of other Palestinian respondents could help elaborate the Palestinian point of view. The same is true for the Israeli side.

It would be interesting to talk to Israeli respondents about the position of the European Union regarding international law. Surveys about the point of view of citizens in both East- and West-Jerusalem and how they perceive the conflict and the European Union could contribute to future studies, with more involvement from both sides. This research has mainly focused on the political position on higher levels, but the perception of citizens could offer an interesting angle, especially because since the European Union tries to increase their visibility in Jerusalem. The aims of the European Union are mainly to build a Palestinian state, but according to Fayrouz of Grassroots Jerusalem the help received is project-based in most cases. Another option could be a comparative case-study with another contested city. The network of European diplomacy in a contested city could be compared with a non-contested city.

The network of consulates of Member States of the European Union and the EEAS in Jerusalem seems to work quite efficiently. Since this study was an extreme case-study, the question rises if the European cooperation would function as efficient in other cities as well. Does cooperation go well because it needs to go well in order to create a legitimate voice of the European Union in Jerusalem or does cooperation between representatives of Member States of the European Union go well everywhere?

The European Union in Jerusalem 70 Bibliography

Aecid, Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (n.y.) AECID, retrieved from http://www.aecid.es/EN/aecid last consulted 29 May 2018

Alfasi, N & Fenster, T. (2009) Between the "Global" and the "Local": On Global Locality and Local Globality, Urban Geography, 30(5): 543-566

Al Jazeera (2018) US cuts UNRWA funding by more than half, published on 17 February 2018 retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/cuts-unrwa-funding- 180116193513823.html last consulted 28 May 2018

Al Jazeera America (2013) Oslo explained, published on 13 September 2013 retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/13/oslo-accords-explained.html last consulted 23 May 2018

Aoun, E., (2003) European foreign policy and the Arab-Israeli dispute: much ado about nothing? European foreign affairs review, 8 (3): 289–312

Aquilé, I. & Roca, E. (2016) Urban development after the Bosnian War: The division of Sarajevo's territory and the construction of East Sarajevo, Cities, 58(2016): 152-163

Austermann, F. (2014) European Union Delegations in EU Foreign Policy, A Diplomatic Service of Different Speeds, Palgrave MacMillan: London

Aymat, E. B. (2010) European involvement in the Arab – Israeli conflict, European Institute for Security Studies: Paris

Balfour Declaration (1917) Balfour Declaration, 2 November 1917, retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20balfour%20declarat ion.aspx last consulted 31 May 2018

71 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Ben-Gurion, D. (1948) The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948, retrieved from https://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm last consulted 31 May 2018

Bicchi, F. (2011) The European External Action Service: A Pivotal Actor in EU Foreign Policy Communications? The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7 (2012): 81-94

Bicchi, F. (2016) Europe under occupation: the European diplomatic community of practice in the Jerusalem are, European Security, 25(4): 461-477

Bicchi, F. & Maurer, H. (2018) European Cooperation Abroad: European Diplomatic Cooperation Outside EU Borders, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(2018): 1-19

Bouris, D. (2012) ‘The European Union’s Role in the Palestinian Territories: State- building through Security Sector Reform?’, European Security, 21(2): 257-271

Bouris, D. & Kyris, G. (2017) Europeanisation, Sovereignty and Contested States: The EU in Northern Cyprus and Palestine, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(4): 755-771

Brach, J. (2007) The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: The Role and Impact of the Economic and Financial Dimension, European Foreign Affairs Review, 12: 555–579, 2007

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford

Buitenlandse Zaken, Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (2017) Jeruzalem - Alleen dialoog en multilateralisme kunnen leiden naar vrede, Press Release77 December 2018, retrieved from https://diplomatie.belgium.be/nl/newsroom/nieuws/2017/jeruzalem_alleen_dialoog_en_ multilateralisme_kunnen_leiden_naar_vrede last consulted 9 June 2018

The European Union in Jerusalem 72 Cabestan, J.P. (2016) Burkina Faso: Between Taiwan's active public diplomacy and China's business attractiveness, South African Journal of International Affairs, 23(4): 495-519

Ciceo, G. (2012) The common foreign and security policy and the inexhaustible quest for its institutional consistency, Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai - Studia Europaea, 1(2012) :37-54.

Commissioner General UNRWA Pierre Krähenbühl (2018), Statement 17 January 2018, retrieved from https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/statement-unrwa- commissioner-general-pierre-krähenbühl-1 last consulted 4 June 2018

Consulaat-Generaal van België in Jerusalem (n.y.) Webpage Geschiedenis van het Consulaat-Generaal, retrieved from http://jerusalem.diplomatie.belgium.be/nl/consulaat- generaal-jeruzalem/geschiedenis-van-het-consulaat-generaal last consulted 23 May 2018

Consulat Général de France à Jerusalem (2017) Webpage Histoire et missions, retrieved from https://jerusalem.consulfrance.org/Histoire last consulted 23 May 2018

Consulate General of Greece in Jerusalem (n.y.) Webpage History, retrieved from https://www.mfa.gr/missionsabroad/en/jerusalem-en/about-us/history.html last consulted 23 May 2018

Consolato Generale d'Italia Gerusalemme (n.y.) Webpage History, retrieved from https://consgerusalemme.esteri.it/consolato_gerusalemme/en/i_rapporti_bilaterali/coope razione_politica/storia last consulted 23 May 2018

Council of the European Communities (1992) Treaty on European Union – Maastricht Treaty, Council of the European Communities, Commission of the European Communities, signed on 7 February 1992, retrieved from https://europa.eu/european- union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/treaty_on_european_union_en.pdf last consulted 3 June 2018

73 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Council of the European Union (2016) Council conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process, ,Press Release 18 January 2016, retrieved from, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/01/18/fac-conclusions- mepp/pdf last consulted 28 May 2018

Cusomano, E. (2017) Diplomatic Security for Hire: The Causes and Implications of Outsourcing Embassy Protection, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 12(2017): 27-55

Deudney, D. & Hanns W. Maull, H.W. (2011) How Britain and France Could Reform the UN Security Council, Survival, 53(5): 107-128

DFID, Department for International Development (n.y.) DFID Palestinian Programme, retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/dfid-opts last consulted 29 May 2018

Drieskens, E. (2012) What’s in a Name? Challenges to the Creation of EU Delegations, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7 (2012) 51-64

EEAS (2016) Webpage About the EU Delegation to West Bank and Gaza Strip, UNRWA, retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/palestine-occupied- palestinian-territory-west-bank-and-gaza-strip/1886/about-eu-delegation-west-bank- and-gaza-strip-unrwa_en last consulted 23 May 2018

EEAS (2018a) Webpage The changing face of Europe – the fall of the Berlin Wall, retrieved from https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/1980-1989_en last consulted 23 May 2018

EEAS (2018b) EU Heads of Mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah visit Palestinian community of Khan al Ahmar facing threat of demolition, Press release 16 May 2018, retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/palestine-occupied-palestinian- territory-west-bank-and-gaza-strip/44675/eu-heads-mission-jerusalem-and-ramallah- visit-palestinian-community-khan-al-ahmar-facing_en last consulted 23 May 2018

The European Union in Jerusalem 74 EEAS (2018c) EU Local Statement on Ahed Tamimi and Palestinian Minors, 4 April 2018 retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters- homepage/42415/eu-local-statement-ahed-tamimi-and-palestinian-minors_en last consulted 4 June 2017

EEAS (2018d) Local EU statement on the demolition by Israeli authorities of parts of the school of the Bedouin community of Abu Nuwar, 6 February 2018 retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/39422/local-eu-statement- demolition-israeli-authorities-parts-school-bedouin-community-abu-nuwar_en last consulted 4 June 2018

EEAS (n.y.) Webpage EU in the World, retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/area/geo_en last consulted at 9 June 1018

Elagraa, M. & Jamal, R. & Elkhafif, M. (2004) Trade Facilitation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Restrictions and Limitations, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, retrieved from http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/gdsapp2014d1_en.pdf last consulted at 4 June 2018

Emmett, C., F. (1996) The Capital Cities of Jerusalem, Geographical Review, 86(2): 233- 258

Emmott, R. (2016) EU defends labelling goods made in Israeli settlements, Reuters, published on 18 January 2016, retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel- palestinians-eu/eu-defends-labeling-goods-made-in-israeli-settlements- idUSKCN0UW24P last consulted 29 May 2018

European Commission (2015) Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, Document released on 11 November 2015 retrieved from http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/israel/documents/related- links/20151111_interpretative_notice_indication_of_origin_en.pdf last consulted 4 June 2018

75 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam European Commission (2016a) Webpage From 6 to 28 members, retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/from-6-to-28-members_en last consulted at 5 June 2018

European Commission (2016b) Webpage European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Palestine, retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood- enlargement/neighbourhood/countries/palestine_en last consulted 4 June 2018

European Commission (2017) Annual Action Programme 2017 in favour of Palestine to be financed from the general budget of the Union, Commission implementing decision of 11.12.2017 on the, retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood- enlargement/sites/near/files/c_2017_8656_2017_palestine_aap_2017_merged.pdf last consulted 29 May 2018

European Commission (2018a) Webpage Countries and regions; Euro-Mediterranean partnership, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and- regions/regions/euro-mediterranean-partnership/ last consulted 24 May 2018

European Commission (2018b) Webpage Countries and regions; Palestine, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/palestine/ last consulted 24 May 2018

European Community (1980) Venice Declaration, European Council Declaration 13 June 1980, retrieved from http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/mepp/docs/venice_declaration_1980_en.pdf last consulted 23 May 2018

European Council (2018) Webpage European Council, retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/conclusions/ last consulted 28 May 2018

European Union (2017) European Joint Strategy, retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/european_joint_strategy_2017- 2020_2017_10_18_.pdf last consulted 28 May 2018

The European Union in Jerusalem 76

Fernandez Pasarín, A., M. (2016) Consulates and Consular Diplomacy, In C.M. Constantinou, P. Kerr, P. Sharp (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy, (161-170), Sage Publications Ltd: London

Flint, C. & Taylor, P. J. (2011) Polticial Geography, World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality, 6th edition, Pearson Education Limited: New York

Harpaz, G. (2012) The Dispute over the Sovereignty of Jerusalem: EU Policies and the Search for Internal Legal Coherence and Consistency with International Law, European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(3): 451-482

Harris, C. (2013) Violence in a Religiously Divided City: Kaduna, Nigeria—From the Shari'a Riots of 2000 to the Post-election Clashes of 2011, Space and Policy, 17(3): 284- 299

Heads of Missions Jerusalem and Ramallah (2014) EU HOMS report on Jerusalem 2014, retrieved from http://www.eccpalestine.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/EU_HOMS_REPORT_ON_JERUSALEM-2014.pdf last consulted 29 May 2018

ITCOOP, Agenzia Italiana Per La Cooperazione Allo Svillupo (n.y.) Italian Cooperation in the Palestinian Territories, retrieved from http://www.itcoop-jer.org/en/content/italian- cooperation-palestinian-territories last consulted 29 May 2018

Jones, R. (2012) Border walls: security and the war on terror in the United States, India, and Israel, Zed Books: London

Kinoshita, A.L. (2016) ¡Que Viva España! The Spanish records on Jerusalem, Open Jerusalem, published on 18 February 2016, retrieved from https://openjlem.hypotheses.org/1002 last consulted 23 May 2018

Kliot, N. & Mansfeld. Y. (1999) Case studies of conflict and territorial organization in divided cities, Progress in Planning, 52(1999): 167-225

77 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam

Knesset (1980) Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, retrieved from https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm last consulted 23 May 2018

Lehrs, L. (2012) Jerusalem on the Negotiating Table: Analyzing the Israeli – Palestinian Peace Talks on Jerusalem (1993 – 2015), Israeli Studies, 21(3): 179 – 205

Lemay-Hébert, N. (2017) Exploring the Effective Authority of International Administrations from the League of Nations to the United Nations, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 11(4): 468-489

Mamadouh, V. & Meijer, A. & Sidaway, J., D. & Wusten van der, H. (2015) Toward an Urban Geography of Diplomacy: Lessons from The Hagues, The Professional Geographer, 67(4): 564-574

Mazza, R. (2016) A Consul for all Seasons: the Spanish Diplomatic Mission in Jerusalem during World War I, retrieved from https://orientxxi.info/l-orient-dans-la-guerre-1914- 1918/a-consul-for-all-seasons-the-spanish-diplomatic-mission-in-jerusalem-during,0664 last consulted 23 May 2018

Michael, K. & Fishman, J. (2012) Building the Positive Peace: The Urgent Need to Bring the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Back to Basics, Jewish Political Studies Review, 24(3/4): 7-29

Mogherini, F. (2017) Speech by HR/VP Federica Mogherini at the European Parliament plenary session on US President Trump's announcement to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel, retrieved from, Strasbourg 12 December 2017, https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/37336/speech-hrvp- federica-mogherini-european-parliament-plenary-session-us-president-trumps_en last consulted 3 June 2018

The European Union in Jerusalem 78 Murdoch, Z. (2012) Negotiating the European External Action Service (EEAS): Analyzing the External Effects of Internal (Dis)Agreement, Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(6): 1011-1027

Naor, A. (2016) Menachem Begin and “Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel”, Israel Studies, 21(3): 36-48

Noueihed, L. (2018) Deadly Gaza Violence Clouds U.S. Embassy Move, Bloomberg, published on 14 May 2018, retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/deadly-gaza-violence-clouds-u- s-embassy-move-israel-update last consulted 3 June 2018

Okano-Heijmans, M. (2013) Consular Affairs, In A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, R. Thakur (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy Online, Oxford University Press: Oxford

O'Mahony, A. (2005) Christianity and Jerusalem: Religion, Politics and Theology in the Modern Holy Land, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 5(2): 86-102

Paasi, A. (1996) Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness, The changing geographies of the Finnish-Russian border, John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey

Papastathis, K. (2017) Greece in the Holy Land during the British Mandate: Diplomacy and Religion, Jerusalem Quarterly, Autumn 2017, issue 71

Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations (2018) Diplomatic Relations, retrieved from http://palestineun.org/about-palestine/diplomatic- relations/ last consulted 23 May 2018

Persson, A. (2018a) ‘EU differentiation’ as a case of ‘Normative Power Europe’ (NPE) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Journal of European Integration, 40(2): 193-208

79 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Persson, A. (2018b) If not now, when should Europe recognise Palestine?, Al Jazeera, published on 21 February 2018 retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/europe-recognise-palestine- 180221093922484.html last consulted 23 May 2018

President Trump (2017) Statement by President Trump on Jerusalem, White House, 6 December, retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement- president-trump-jerusalem/ last consulted 3 June 2018

Rana, K. S. (2016) Embassies, permanent missions and special missions, In C.M. Constantinou, P. Kerr, P. Sharp (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy, (149-160), Sage Publications Ltd: London

Ravid, B. (2015) European Commission Adopts Guidelines for Labeling Products From Israeli Settlements, Haaretz, published on 11 November 2015, retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-european-commission-adopts- guidelines-for-labeling-products-from-israeli-settlements-1.5420413 last consulted at 9 June 2018

Reuters Staff (2018) Jerusalem's Church of Holy Sepulchre to reopen after protest, Reuters, published on 27 February 2018 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel- palestinians-jerusalem-church/jerusalem-suspends-tax-plan-that-led-to-closure-of- church-of-the-holy-sepulchre-idUSKCN1GB1Y7 last consulted 4 June 2018

Scac, Service de coopération et d’action Culturelle (2016) Présentation de la cooperation, retrieved from https://jerusalem.consulfrance.org/Presentation-de-la-cooperation last consulted 29 May 2018

Shalem, M. (2012) EU to ban West Bank companies labelling their products 'made in Israel', The Independent, published on 10 November 2015, retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/eu-to-ban-west-bank- companies-labelling-their-products-made-in-israel-a6729356.html last consulted 29 May 2018

The European Union in Jerusalem 80 Shoshan, M. (2010) Atlas of the Conflict, Nai010: Rotterdam

Smith, M. (2016) European Union Diplomacy, In C.M. Constantinou, P. Kerr, P. Sharp (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy, (308-318), Sage Publications Ltd: London

Tilley, V. (2010) A Palestinian Declaration of Independence: Implications for Peace, Middle East Policy, 17(1): 52-67

UK in Jerusalem (n.y.) Webpage Consulate General in Jerusalem, retrieved from, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090319231030/http://ukinjerusalem.fco.go v.uk/en/our-offices-in-jerusalem/consulate-general-in-jerusalem/consulate-general- history last consulted 29 May 2018

United Nations (1947) Resolution 181 Adopted On The Report Of The Ad Hoc Committee On The Palestinian Question, the United Nations Partition Plan

UNRWA Brussels (n.y.) Document ‘EU and UNRWA together for palestine refugees’, retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood- enlargement/sites/near/files/eu_and_unrwa_factsheet_2017.pdf last consulted 4 June 2018

Vataman, D. (2012) The role of the European External Action Service in the EU’s institutional system, Challenges of the Knowledge Society, May 2012: 719-730

Wasserstein, B. (2001) Divided Jerusalem, Yale University Press: New Haven, Conneticut

Wessel, R. A. & Vooren, van, B. (2013) The EEAS's diplomatic dreams and the reality of European and international law, Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9): 1350-1367

Wouters, J. & Duquet, S. (2012) The EU and International Diplomatic Law: New Horizons?, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(2012): 31-49

81 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam Wouters, J. & Duquet, S. & Meuwissen, K. (2013) The Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, In A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, R. Thakur (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy Online, Oxford University Press: Oxford

The European Union in Jerusalem 82 Appendix: Topic list for the interviews with representatives of the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem

Consulates: The questions for the consulates were more or less the same everywhere in order to be able to directly compare the answers. 1. Is the office located in East or in West-Jerusalem (not a question to ask, but something to look up)? 2. Since when is the consulate here in Jerusalem and what is the reason for it to be here? 3. Which citizens does the consulate serve? Are there large groups of nationals coming to Israel that need assistance? 4. What was the reaction of this consulate after the announcement of president Trump to move the American embassy? 5. The European Union was quick to formulate a reaction, has the consulate been involved in this? 6. What is the viewpoint of the European Union about the two-state solution of Israel and how is it incorporated in the daily practices of this consulate in Jerusalem? 7. Do you think the Member State and the location of the consulate is an expression of being in favour of the two-state solution? 8. Does the viewpoint of the consulate differ from that of the European Union? (related to the fact that some consulates recognized Palestine as a separate state) 9. What are the actions taken here on the ground to ‘promote’ the two-state solution the European Union is in favour of? 10. Is there contact with the consulates of other EU Member States in Jerusalem? Do you have meetings and what is discussed during these meetings? 11. Is there contact between the consulate and the embassies in Ramallah and Tel Aviv? 12. Is there contact with the delegation of the EU (and with the European External Action Service in Brussels?)?

83 Iris Voorwerk, University of Amsterdam European External Action Service 1. Is the office located in East or in West-Jerusalem (not a question to ask, but something to look up)? 2. Since when is the EEAS located in Jerusalem? 3. What is the aim of the delegation of the EU in Jerusalem? 4. Has the EEAS in Jerusalem been involved in the reaction of the European Union after Trump did not sign the latest waiver to move the embassy? 5. What are the expectations for the next deadline to sign the waiver in June 2018? 6. Are there regular meetings between the consulates of the member states of the European Union and the EEAS? What is discussed during these meetings? 7. The EEAS writes a paper about the development of East-Jerusalem every six months. What is the goal of the six-monthly papers? 8. Does the EEAS in Jerusalem play a big role in the formulation of the viewpoint of the European Union in the conflict between Israel and Palestine? 9. The president of the Palestinian Authority stated during his visit to Brussels in 2017 that he wants the EU to play a bigger role in the peace process. How is the EEAS in Jerusalem involved in this? 10. Are there any actions taken here on the ground to influence the disputed status of Jerusalem?

The European Union in Jerusalem 84