Despite the fact that the Zionism that dominates the Israeli political agenda has roots in Central Europe and the eagerness of its leaders to ensure that Israel is recognized as another member of the European family is clearly visible, its relations with the European Union (EU) have long been defined by permanent disagreement.
The latest example is the refusal of Foreign Minister Israel Katz to receive the EU High Representative for Foreign, Security and Defence Policy, Josep Borrell, as part of his visit to the region to try to reduce existing tensions. Borrell is now one of the most prominent pet peeves for Tel Aviv, both for its allegations of violations committed by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Gaza and the West Bank, and for its proposals to apply sanctions against the two most extremist ministers in the Israeli cabinet, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir.
In reality, it is raining in the rain. Never mind that the Twenty-Seven are Israel’s largest trading partner and also stand out as the main donor of aid to the occupied Palestinian territories – thus lightening the burden that Israel itself, as the occupying power, must bear in terms of the welfare and security of the Palestinian population.
What matters for Tel Aviv is that one of these twenty-seven countries – Germany – was responsible for the Jewish holocaust, while others consented and looked the other way when this tragedy was happening. Added to this, since 1970, is the Venice Declaration, by which the then European Economic Community recognized the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and defended their right to self-determination. Some elements that successive Israeli political leaders have manipulated at will in order to disqualify the EU as an honest broker in the search for a solution to the conflict, on the grounds that it had taken the side of one of the actors involved (which has never been confirmed) apply to the United States, despite its structural pro-Israeli bias).
What matters for Tel Aviv is that one of these twenty-seven countries – Germany – was responsible for the Jewish holocaust, while others acquiesced and looked the other way as it unfolded.
A position that, fundamentally, only seeks to leave the EU out of the game in any hypothetical international negotiation framework, while striving to keep Washington as the main intermediary, considering that in this way, Israel will always be in an advantageous position compared to the Palestinians, who, by definition, constitute the weaker part of the equation – both because of their own inferiority in force and the limited effective support provided to them by all Arab governments.
And, if the very visible contempt with which successive Israeli leaders treat the EU were not enough, one must add the negative effect arising from the internal disagreements of the Twenty-Seven on an issue on which it has so far been impossible to reach a common position that goes beyond declarations of regret for what is happening in Palestine.
The historical complexities of the one and the commercial interests of the other (including those related to the lucrative defence industrial sector), not only considered in bilateral terms, but also because of the fear that the entrance hall Israel’s power to influence relations with other countries critical of Israel explains the enormous difficulty for Borrell himself in using the considerable levers at the disposal of the European Union to prevent Israel from systematically failing in its obligations as an occupier and violating international law in such a tragic way.
The enormous difficulty for Borrell to use the considerable levers at the disposal of the European Union to prevent Israel from systematically failing in its obligations as an occupier and violating international law in such a tragic way.
A good example of this is the High Representative’s failed attempt to convene the EU-Israel Association Council last June, established under an agreement in force since June 2000, Article 2 of which establishes that relations are based on respect for democratic principles and human rights – so that if one party violates these rights, the other party has the right to suspend it. At no point did the Israeli Foreign Minister feel compromised by this formal call, calculating that one of the Twenty-Seven would take it upon himself to delay the meeting. sine die.
It is therefore not surprising that Israel is taking advantage of these internal fractures to pursue its fait accompli strategy on the ground, to the point of making the existence of a sovereign Palestinian state unviable. It is, however, stranger that the Twenty-Seven are repeatedly making the same mistake, which only serves to further diminish their political stature, not in the eyes of Israelis, but also in the eyes of other interested observers who are taking good note of the EU’s weakness as an international actor.
