RUTHFULLY YOURS

TERRORISM IS AIRBRUSHED OUT OF EU’S PLANS FOR ISRAEL

Posted By Ruth King on December 9th, 2009

EU foreign ministers airbrush terrorism out of lopsided resolution on Jerusalem, Gaza and peace
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/eu-foreign-ministers-reduced-to-cliche-and-self-contradiction-in-lopsided-resolution-on-jerusalem-gaza-and-peace/#more-1801
I suppose it is to be welcomed that EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels today passed what amounts to only a watered down version of the initial proposal being pressed for by Sweden, the country which holds the EU’s rotating presidency.

So given that the ministers rejected plans to offer recognition to a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, we might perhaps be grateful for small mercies. Nonetheless, the resolution that was in fact passed still demonstrates an almost complete inability to understand Israel’s predicament in the Middle East while continuing to peddle distortions about what is really going on that can only serve as an obstacle to peace. The complete absence of any reference to terrorism or Hamas is simply extraordinary.

Here is the text of the resolution followed by my brief comments after each of the 12 articles of which it is constituted:

“1. The Council of the European Union is seriously concerned about the lack of progress in the
Middle East peace process. The European Union calls for the urgent resumption of
negotiations that will lead, within an agreed time-frame, to a two-state solution with the State
of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side
by side in peace and security. A comprehensive peace, which is a fundamental interest of the
parties in the region and the EU, must be achieved on the basis of the relevant UN Security
Council Resolutions, the Madrid principles including land for peace, the Roadmap, the
agreements previously reached by the parties and the Arab Peace Initiative.”

This is fatuous. Israel has called for unconditional talks with the Palestinians which they have so far refused. Why has the EU failed to take note of this?

“2. The Council reconfirms its support for the United States’ efforts to resume negotiations on all
final status issues, including borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security and water, respecting
previous agreements and understandings. The European Union will not recognise any changes
to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the
parties. The Council reiterates the EU’s readiness to contribute substantially to post-conflict
arrangements, aimed at ensuring the sustainability of peace agreements, and will continue the
work undertaken on EU contributions on state-building, regional issues, refugees, security and
Jerusalem. The Council underlines the need for a reinvigorated Quartet engagement and notes
the crucial importance of an active Arab contribution building on the Arab Peace Initiative.”

This is mostly meaningless. But take note of the second sentence on not recognising any changes unless the parties agree to them. It contradicts later statements on Jerusalem (see article 8 below).

“3. The EU stands ready to further develop its bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority
reflecting shared interests, including in the framework of the European Neighbourhood
Policy. Recalling the Berlin declaration, the Council also reiterates its support for negotiations
leading to Palestinian statehood, all efforts and steps to that end and its readiness, when
appropriate, to recognise a Palestinian state. It will continue to assist Palestinian statebuilding,
including through its CSDP missions and within the Quartet. The EU fully supports
the implementation of the Palestinian Authority’s Government Plan “Palestine, Ending the
Occupation, Establishing the State” as an important contribution to this end and will work for
enhanced international support for this plan.”

Note how the EU endorses the Palestinian plan, and the narratives it contains. Again, no reference is made to Israel’s calls for negotiations and for a demilitarised Palestinian state.

“4. Recalling the EU’s position as expressed at the Association Council in June 2009, the Council
reaffirms its readiness to further develop its bilateral relations with Israel within the
framework of the ENP. The EU reiterates its commitment towards the security of Israel and
its full integration into the region, which is best guaranteed through peace between Israel and
its neighbours.”

Meaningless diplomatic mantras.

“5. Encouraging further concrete confidence building measures, the Council takes positive note
of the recent decision of the Government of Israel on a partial and temporary settlement freeze
as a first step in the right direction and hopes that it will contribute towards a resumption of
meaningful negotiations.”

This article was forced into the resolution against the wishes of Sweden and Britain amongst others after strong pressure from Israel.

“6. Developments on the ground play a crucial part in creating the context for successful
negotiations. The Council reiterates that settlements, the separation barrier where built on
occupied land, demolition of homes and evictions are illegal under international law,
constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. The
Council urges the government of Israel to immediately end all settlement activities, in East
Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank and including natural growth, and to dismantle all
outposts erected since March 2001.”

Criticism of Israel which is unmatched by any countervailing criticism of the Palestinian side. No recognition is offered of the role of the security barrier in preventing terrorism. Terrorism, of course, does not get a single mention anywhere in the resolution. There is also the tendentious interpretation of international law.

“7. The EU welcomes Israel’s steps to ease restrictions of movement in the West Bank which
have made a contribution to economic growth. The Council calls for further and sustained
improvements of movement and access, noting that many check points and road blocks
remain in place. The Council also calls on the Palestinian Authority to build on its efforts to
improve law and order.”

Again, no context is offered as to why Israel put up road blocks in the first place.

“8. The Council is deeply concerned about the situation in East Jerusalem. In view of recent
incidents, it calls on all parties to refrain from provocative actions. The Council recalls that it
has never recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem. If there is to be a genuine peace, a
way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital
of two states. The Council calls for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem in
accordance with the Roadmap. It also calls on the Israeli government to cease all
discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

All injunctions are directed exclusively at Israel. It is as if the Palestinians were purely innocent victims. As suggest above, note also that in this article the EU calls for Jerusalem to become the capital of Israel as well as a future Palestinian state. However, in article 2 the resolution says: “The European Union will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.” Why is the EU seeking to prejudge the outcome of negotiations by issuing a firm view on the status of Jerusalem? If the parties come to an agreement on Jerusalem which does not make East Jerusalem the capital, the EU has thus committed itself to opposing that. To be sure, the Palestinian side is highly likely to demand East Jerusalem as its capital. But why is the EU endorsing that demand prior to negotiations? Which Israeli demands does it endorse a priori? The answer is none. At best, the issue is none of the EU’s business.

“9. Gravely concerned about the situation in Gaza, the Council urges the full implementation of
UNSCR 1860 and the full respect of international humanitarian law. In this context, the
continued policy of closure is unacceptable and politically counterproductive. It has
devastated the private sector economy and damaged the natural environment, notably water
and other natural resources. The EU again reiterates its calls for an immediate, sustained and
unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and
persons to and from Gaza. In this context, the Council calls for the full implementation of the
Agreement on Movement and Access. While extremists stand to gain from the current
situation, the civilian population, half of which are under the age of 18, suffers. Fully
recognising Israel’s legitimate security needs, the Council continues to call for a complete stop
to all violence and arms smuggling into Gaza. The Council calls on those holding the
abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to release him without delay.”

Calling for the release of Shalit is to be welcomed. But what on earth does the EU think it is playing at in calling for the “unconditional opening” of the Gaza crossings? Why, for example, is the need to protect Israeli civilians not considered a reasonable condition that Israel might consier in any decision to open the crossings partially or temporarily? There is, of course, the pro forma reference to Israel’s security needs and an oblique call to stop violence without mentioning who its perpetrators are or what are their aims. This article, which once again eschews any mention of the word “terrorism”, betrays a complete failure to understand the situation in Gaza and says nothing of the terror group, Hamas, which runs it. Truly incredible!

“10. The Council calls on all Palestinians to promote reconciliation behind President Mahmoud
Abbas, support for the mediation efforts by Egypt and the Arab League and the prevention of
a permanent division between the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. The
Council would welcome the organisation of free and fair Palestinian elections when
conditions permit.”

Meaningless mantras.

“11. A comprehensive peace must include a settlement between Israel and Syria and Israel and
Lebanon. Concerning the Syrian track, the EU welcomes recent statements by Israel and Syria
confirming their willingness to advance towards peace and supports all efforts aimed at the
reactivation of the talks between the two countries.”

Fair enough. But hardly mindblowing stuff.

“12. The EU recalls that a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict requires a regional
approach and will continue its work on this in line with the June 2009 Council Conclusions
using all its instruments to this effect. The EU also calls on all regional actors to take
confidence building measures in order to stimulate mutual trust and encourages Arab
countries to be forthcoming, both politically and financially, in assisting the Palestinian
Authority and to Palestinian refugees through UNRWA.”

Bland cliches. No mention of stopping anti-Semitic incitement across the Arab world. No mention — not one single word — about Iran.

So there we have it. That, in full, is the resolution that the leading lights of European diplomacy spent two days discussing in Brussels. Make of it what you will.

The text uninterrupted by my comments can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu//uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/111829.pdf

Comments are closed.