EU foreign ministers airbrush terrorism out of lopsided resolution on Jerusalem, Gaza and peace
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
Tags: Israel
December 8th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
The EU statement is reportedly “watered-down”.
Had it not been for a few courageous states who dared to defy Sweden, Britain, Belgium and Ireland, it would have been even worse. The assumption that antiSemitism on some nations’ part on the “sub-cognitive” level should not be discounted, though ignorance, the non-knowledge of recent history and (lo and behold!) international law itself played an equally big part.
What do we know? We know for sure that the “Nazi” East Europeans, Italy, Holland, and to lesser extent France and Germany saved what was salvable.
Had Britain opposed the despicable Swedish draft, the final version could have perhaps flushed the original text. It’s clear that London positioned itself as an irresponsible party that Israel would do its best to expose expressis verbis. It should concentrate all its ammunition on it, ’cause it’s clear to everyone that Sweden on itself would have fallen on its sword had it not have an important supporter. All the big states were scepticle about this neo-imperialist maneuver to varying degrees. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the 16.5 million Netherlands and Romania, even Spain. Portugal, Belgium, Ireland are non-entities and have no clout (as no shame either).
It would be interesting to know what Netanyahu would say to Gordon Brown personally when they meet next week in Denmark. Gordon Brown in my view is an irresponsible, weak total incompetent for a Prime Minister (and far from only on Israel matters) whose word has proven to have absolutely no meaning and credit. See his speach in the Knesset, the supposed infatuation with Israel, his family history and all that blahblah. And wonder. The problem is that with this PM Israel never knew in earnest where he stood/stands. Was the anti-Israeli Miliband left on his own to formulate his own policy? Or Brown agreed with him completely?
Of course Sweden is an openly anti-Israeli country (here it would not be an exaggeration to use the moniker: anti-Israeli *nation*) and one of those (in the rarified air of company with Spain, and the Irish…). But Sweden is a non-entity in the international world.
That’s why I believe Israel would have nothing to lose NOW if an open break with London were to follow imo. In the meantime it shouldn’t and mustn’t alienate the Germans and the French. Israel gains nothing by appeasing the British.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
A prime ‘confidence building measure’ from my point of view would be some sort of opposition on the part of the EU to the absurdity of the fact that Lebanon, with the Hizbollah component in its government, is about to take a seat on the UN Security Council in January. I really don’t think it’s finicky to demand that a country sitting on the UNSC should not have a terrorist element with veto capabilities in its government, and one that is blatantly disregarding UNSC resolution 1701 at that!
December 9th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Israel should declare Stockholm the capital of a future Palestinian state.
We are being led by morons – and the UK’s role is shameful. Be thankful for the “New” Europe and Italy for watering down Sweden’s disgusting proposal. Did Germany and France reject Sweden’s view?
December 9th, 2009 at 1:05 am
The European Union will not recognise any changes
to the pre-1967 borders [...]
Borders have two sides. Do they believe that Jordan ought to be occupying the West bank, and Egypt the Gaza Strip?
December 9th, 2009 at 3:26 am
I suppose if you area foreign minister you have to do foreign minister sorts of things to justify your paycheck. What a bunch of impotent, time-wasting clowns.
“The Council calls for further and sustained improvements of movement and access, noting that many check points and road blocks remain in place.” Recent reports suggest there are about 12 checkpoints, and, of course, most of the “roadblocks” are simply traffic barriers nuilt alongside the roads.
“The European Union will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.” For heaven’s sake – even GoogleMaps recognizes the Green Line as the 1948 Armistice Line not “borders” – have these ministers ever looked at a map, and do they know anything at all about the history of the area?
Their meeting was a waste of time and paper.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Sweden now recognizes the ethnic cleansing of Gush Etzion and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and Hevron…not much of a leap to Judea, Samaria and what next Tel Aviv…
December 10th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Apparently France and Germany favoured the watered down version as well – which just shows you that Britain is now officially the most hostile major European government to Israel. Well, only 5 more months and this lot will be out!
December 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am
The real purpose of the resolution:
‘Palestinians want West to force Israel to accept state’
“Defense establishment officials said Wednesday that the Palestinian Authority is orchestrating a diplomatic campaign with the international community to coerce Israel into accepting a political arrangement which would pave the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin and other top defense officials told ministers during a briefing at the political-security cabinet that the Palestinian Authority is trying to push Israel into a settlement “from above” by drawing in the international community.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134135.html
December 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Guess who is Jew-baiting again today:
Sweden warns Israel: Don’t divide EU over Jerusalem stance
‘Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt warned Thursday that Israel must not play “divide and rule” with the 27-member European Union over a recent resolution calling for Jerusalem to become the shared capital of Israel and a future Palestinian state.
Bildt, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency, said Thursday the bloc was united and would not “remain shy” on so crucial an issue.’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134160.html
December 10th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Posted at “The Local”:
Letter to the Editor: UK MPs back Sweden over Palestinian capital
Published: 7 Dec 09
As EU foreign ministers gather in Brussels to debate the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations, a group of British MPs have come out in support of a Swedish proposal to establish East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Dear Editor
We, Parliamentarians in the UK, would like to put on record our
support for the Swedish Presidency’s draft document calling for a
viable state of Palestine, comprising the West Bank and Gaza and with
East Jerusalem as its capital. Additionally, we entirely support its
reiteration that settlements, the separation barrier on occupied land
and the demolition of homes are illegal under international law and
constitute an obstacle to peace by threatening to make a two-state
solution impossible. We have asked our Foreign Secretary to endorse
this document at the meeting in Brussels on Monday 7th December.
We pay tribute to the Swedish Presidency for raising this and for
standing firm against attempts to derail this initiative.
Yours sincerely
Martin Linton M.P, Chair of British-Swedish All-Party Parliamentary
Group and Chair of Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Other names below:
Robert Marshall-Andrews Q.C M.P (Labour)
Phyllis Starkey M.P (Labour)
Jeremy Corbyn M.P (Labour)
Mark Durkan M.P (SDLP)
Richard Burden M.P (Labour)
Bob Russell M.P (Liberal Democrat)
Andrew George M.P (Liberal Democrat)
Anne Moffat M.P (Labour)
Mohammad Sarwar M.P (Labour)
Dai Havard M.P (Labour)
Jim Hood M.P (Labour)
Glenda Jackson M.P (Labour)
Dr. Lynne Jones M.P (Labour)
David Lepper M.P (Labour and Co-operative)
Tom Levitt M.P (Labour)
Albert Owen M.P (Labour)
Ronnie Campbell M.P (Labour)
Martin Caton M.P (Labour)
Ann Cryer M.P (Labour)
John Cummings M.P (Labour)
David Drew M.P (Labour and Co-operative)
Peter Bottomley M.P (Conservative)
Andy Slaughter M.P (Labour)
Emily Thornberry M.P (Labour)
Linda Riordan M.P (Labour and Co-operative)
Stephen Williams M.P (Liberal Democrat)
Mark Lazarowicz M.P (Labour and Co-operative)
Claire Short M.P (Labour)
Lord Glentoran (Conservative)
Paul Rowen M.P (Liberal Democrat)
Derek Conway M.P (Conservative)
Mark Fisher M.P (Labour)
Baronness Butler-Sloss (Cross-Bench)
Charlotte Atkins M.P (Labour)
John Austin M.P (Labour)
Frank Cook M.P (Labour)
Lord Maclennan (Liberal Democrat)
Gordon Prentice M.P (Labour)
Paul Flynn M.P (Labour)
Dianne Abbott M.P (Labour)
Lord Hylton (Cross-Bench)
Dr. Brian Iddon M.P (Labour)
Lord Steel (Liberal Democrat)
Chris Mullin M.P (Labour)
Derek Wyatt M.P (Labour)
Jo Swinson M.P (Liberal Democrat)
Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
http://www.thelocal.se/23696/20091207/
This also:
UK MPs back Swedish presidency on Jerusalem
Published: 7 Dec 09
“A group of nearly 50 members of the British parliament have written a letter voicing their support for a controversial Swedish EU presidency proposal to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.”
http://www.thelocal.se/23692/20091207/
December 10th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Thank you
December 10th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Who betrayed whom?
According to Isi Leibler in the JPost, Europe “betryed” Israel. NO, NO and NO! I sharply and passionately disagree and protest this! Let’s see one by one. The traditional anti-Israeli members like Ireland, Belgium-Luxemburg, and Sweden couldn’t have “betrayed” Israel ’cause they always hated it and would always have done anything to screw it, had it been up to them. France and Germany didn’t really betrayed Israel either, as Italy, Holland and the East Europeans didn’t either cause they were Israel’s shield against Sweden. After the dust settles it’s clear to see for everyone that ONLY ONE country betrayed Israel, and that is England (Let’s leave this “Britain” “phenomenon” away pls). They alone betrayed Israel, no one else. And Israel would be wise not to rest on its laurels stupidly as is its habits, but confront London frontally for once.
And one more thing if I may at the end – I spotted by chance on the pictures that the “honourable” Carl Bildt is dying his hair to be blonde. Now tell me, which psychologically sound, healthy 60 year old man in the world does this among normal circumstances…?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:42 am
“After the dust settles it’s clear to see for everyone that ONLY ONE country betrayed Israel, and that is England”
Britain not by tradition anti-Israeli? I suggest you read this speech by historian Andrew Roberts:
An inconvenient truth
http://tinyurl.com/yjqg7r2
The latest anti-Israeli move by the British government:
http://tinyurl.com/ydz7jy7
The piece above in the Guardian is more or less an explicit call for a boycott of Israel. The authors even tell us where we can find the goods we need to boycott. The incitement is truly shocking. Check out, for example, this quote from a member of The Palestine Solidarity Campaign:
“Particularly following Israel’s massacre in Gaza, consumers have been shocked at Israel’s war crimes and want to take action. They do not want to feel complicit in Israel’s occupation by buying stolen goods.”
Reading the Guardian today, I feel like a German Jew perusing Der Stürmer in the 1930s. Am I still loyal to Britain? Why would I want to risk even a nose bleed for men like Ian Black, Rory McCarthy and James Meikle?
December 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
When are the EU and the Guardian going to come out with a statement or resolution condemning Egypt for sealing off its border with Gaza.
We are inundated with criticism of Israel’s defence fence, but not a word about one Arab country sealing itself off completely from its needy fellow Arabs
The double standards that are applied to the Israel/Palestinian conflict are beyond belief, and this EU resolution serves to further prove that. The gratuitous and meaningless references to what the Palestinians should do in no way match up to the wholly anti Israel sentiments in this latest EU attack.