Divided and Divisive Europeans, Israel and Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking Edited by Dr. Muriel Asseburg & Dr. Nimrod Goren The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies Yonatan Touval / Member of the Board [email protected] / +972-52-2747786 11 Tuval St., Ramat Gan 52522, Israel / www.mitvim.org.il Colophon CONTENT Editors: Dr. Muriel Asseburg & Dr. Nimrod Goren Graphic design: Het IJzeren Gordijn PREFACE 4 Divided and Divisive: Europeans, Israel and Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking May 2019 INTRODUCTION 5 ISBN: 978-94-92487-38-4 Dr. Muriel Asseburg and Dr. Nimrod Goren NUR: 689 Serial number: PAX/2019/07 CHAPTER 1. A MORE INWARD LOOKING EUROPEAN UNION 8 The Structural Limits to a more Effective EU Foreign and Security Policy All rights reserved. Dr. Nicolai von Ondarza Copyright © 2019 by Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) – The German Institute for Introduction 8 International and Security Affairs & PAX. 1. The persistent challenge of unanimity and a weak High Representative 9 2. A more inward looking EU, despite focus on ‘European sovereignty/strategic autonomy’ 12 The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of Mitvim, SWP and PAX. Commercial use of this publication is not permitted without 3. Brexit uncertainty is a challenge for European foreign policy 15 written consent by the publishers. 4. An ‘institutional vacuum’ strengthens coalitions of (larger) member states 18 Outlook 20 Questions and feedback on this report are highly appreciated, feel free to contact the organisations mentioned below. www.mitvim.org.il CHAPTER 2. DIVISIVE POLICIES 21 www.paxforpeace.nl Israel’s Foreign Policy towards the EU and its Member States www.swp-berlin.org Dr. Eyal Ronen with Dr. Nimrod Goren Introduction 21 1. Background 22 2. With which EU regional blocs has Israel allied itself? On what basis? 25 3. How does Israel leverage its growing bilateral ties with EU Member States to advance its interests? 28 4. The perception of Israel’s foreign policy towards the EU 32 Conclusion 35 CHAPTER 3. POLITICAL PARALYSIS 36 The Impact of Divisions among EU Member States on the European Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Dr. Muriel Asseburg Introduction 36 1. Impediments to an effective European role 37 2. Three blocks within the EU 40 3. Prospects 49 Conclusion 50 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 52 Dr. Muriel Asseburg and Dr. Nimrod Goren ABOUT THE AUTHORS 60 3 Divided and Divisive PREFACE INTRODUCTION Dr. Muriel Asseburg and Dr. Nimrod Goren The report Divided and Divisive analyses the current dynamics of the relations between the Over the last 40 years, since the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty (that alluded to but did not solve European Union and Israel. Experts from Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign the Palestinian question) and the European Community’s 1980 Venice Declaration, Europe has Policies and the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik – The German Institute for International been seeking ways to help advance Israeli-Palestinian peace. The task was not an easy one, and Security Affairs reflect on the implications these developments have on the long-stalled mostly due to United States of America (US) dominance of peace negotiations and negative Middle East Peace Process. The authors offer highly relevant recommendations and insights Israeli attitudes towards Europe as a mediator. Thus, while Europeans were key in shaping for anyone who seeks to contribute to a fair and sustainable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian international language on the conflict, they have remained in the back seat when it comes conflict. to shaping dynamics on the ground. Since the collapse in 2014 of the John Kerry initiative to advance the peace process, the task has become even more difficult for the Europeans. The relevance of this report goes beyond this conflict, however. It demonstrates the European Realities on the ground, such as a right-wing government in Israel lacking interest in advancing Union’s (EU) increasing fragility and its growing inability to effectively protect and act upon a peace process, expanded settlement construction, as well as the internal Palestinian split and its fundamental values of respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, governance deficiencies in the Palestinian Authority, make the two-state solution ever more equality and the rule of law. These are precisely the values that have made the EU a crucial difficult to achieve. In addition, Israel’s leadership has worked to weaken and divide the EU in instrument in strengthening peaceful co-existence. Hence, this report is a call to action to order to limit its role on the issue. In this endeavor, it has profited from different interests and solidify these values for the sake of the EU itself. priorities among EU Member States as reflected in discussions and decision-making processes regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. PAX wants to thank Dr. Muriel Asseburg, Dr. Nimrod Goren, Dr. Nicolai von Ondarza and Dr. Eyal Ronen for their thorough analyses, deep reflections and commitment to this project. These trends have increasingly intensified in recent years, and it is the goal of this publication to analyze them, assess their impact on European capacities and policies, and devise Jan Gruiters recommendations to tackle and perhaps even reverse them. The publication includes three Director PAX analytical chapters focusing on internal European dynamics, on Israel’s foreign policy towards the EU, and on EU policy-making regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/peace process. In his contribution “A More Inward Looking EU: The structural limits to a more effective EU foreign and security policy”, Dr. Nicolai von Ondarza analyses the short to medium term trends 4 5 Divided and Divisive Divided and Divisive challenging the EU’s capacity for a pro-active and coherent foreign policy that would bring to the Traditionally, the Middle East peace process has been one of the policy areas where the EU and fore the economic and political weight of the EU and its Member States. The first obstacle lies in its Member States have had a well-defined, detailed and consistent stance. The EU has also been the institutional structure of the EU – with the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and a vanguard in shaping international language on the conflict. Still, over the last few years, while Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) remaining purely intergovernmental policy areas, Europeans were able to score temporary success on particular issues, they have failed to halt or in which each decision (with very few exceptions) requires unanimity. This gives every member reverse trends on the ground. To the contrary: the situation has been worsening rapidly with a state a veto and makes decision-making necessarily oriented towards a low common denominator. concrete risk of renewed escalation of large-scale armed violence, breakdown of the Palestinian Paradoxically, a second major factor limiting the EU’s capacity as an effective foreign and security Authority and the door closing for good on conflict resolution based on a two-state approach. policy actor is its current debate about ‘strategic autonomy’ or ‘European sovereignty’. This debate In her contribution on “Political Paralysis: The Impact of Divisions among EU Member States has created frictions between Germany, France and Poland, inter alia, weakening rather than on the European Role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, Dr. Muriel Asseburg explains why strengthening EU coherence. The current focus is also on cooperation in military capabilities, the Europeans have not been able to assume a more prominent role in the Middle East peace which will take years if not decades to realize. The third major challenge for the Europeans in process. First, EU Member States have refrained from challenging the US administration’s their foreign and security policy is the future cooperation with the United Kingdom (UK) after position as the chief mediator. Second, EU Member States have hidden behind the EU rather Brexit, if and when it occurs. The Brexit process has already diverted UK attention away from than being active proponents of agreed-upon stances. Third, and most importantly, consensus foreign policy issues, and it will further complicate cooperation in the future. The exact form of has been lacking with regard to the direction forward. The Trump Administration’s approach, cooperation is yet to be decided, but it is clear that the UK will not be at the table when the EU as well as Israeli policies aimed at further splitting EU Member States, have deepened divisions makes future foreign and security policy decisions. The fourth major challenge for EU foreign among the Europeans. Asseburg argues that even if the Europeans do not consider the Israeli- policy lies in the 2019 European elections and their implications. For most of 2019, EU institutions Palestinian conflict a foreign policy priority today, they should take the associated risks will be in caretaker mode. With the two major parties likely to lose their overall majority in the seriously. In view of fast developments on the ground, hibernating until the end of the Trump European Parliament, and an expected rise in seat shares for EU-sceptic parties, the election of a Administration and pinning hopes on the next Israeli government will not be enough. Against new Commission – including the next High Representative – could well stretch into 2020. Taken the backdrop of the divisions among EU Member States analyzed here, progressive action will together, this will continue to amplify the importance of the large member states – Germany and only be possible in informal coalitions. At the same time, it will be of utmost importance to France, in particular – in setting the EU’s foreign policy agenda. maintain the E27 (preferably plus the UK) consensus on the acquis with regards to principles of conflict resolution.