The European Union's recent announcement that Jerusalem is the capital of two states, to be achieved through negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, is a rejection of Sweden's proposal that there be explicit recognition of East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent state of Palestine. Since 1967 most European countries have expressed their support for establishing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, or have at least considered East Jerusalem to be part of occupied territory, in line with international law, and not part of the single capital claimed by Israel. However, the recent European decision is completely in proportion to the influence the EU has internationally — in other words, small. Despite its physical size and its economic, military, cultural and social potential, Brussels appears not to want to exploit to the full the influence that the EU could have around the world. In other words, the EU lacks the courage to take brave decisions on global issues, giving it all the characteristics of a cowardly giant. It is opting for caution, is shy about tackling issues, is taking confused steps, and thus is ending up with nothing. There is of course no harm about being cautious per se, but why not be courageously so, making careful but steady progress? The need for such courage has never been as clear as it is today on the issue of calls for a Palestinian state and what that state would entail in terms of land and its capital city. The EU has decided that Jerusalem should be the capital of two states without giving a clear definition of what that would mean in practice. Does the EU mean that East Jerusalem should be the Palestinian capital, occupied and annexed in defiance of international law as it was by Israel in 1967? Would that be with or without the illegal settlements that Israel has been building for the past 40-plus years? Or do the settlements — actually, colonies — fall under a different heading in the negotiations, within which options such as dismantling them or swapping their land for other territory in defiance of international law figure prominently? Why does Jerusalem have to be divided anyway? The original UN partition plan of 1947 envisaged an international status for the city. Whatever is eventually decided, the really cowardly aspect of the EU's position is that it has introduced the concept of negotiations on two states as the key component of any decision about Jerusalem. What if the negotiations, which with the US as “honest broker” will always tilt towards the Israeli position, fail to reach an agreement about two states? Does that mean that the Palestinians will lose their right to Jerusalem and Israel's illegal annexation will be rewarded with permanent occupation? The finger of blame for this possibility should not be pointed at the Israelis alone. Palestinian negotiators after the 1992 Oslo Accords have also preferred to seek solutions outside the texts of international resolutions, such as, for example, on the issue of the Palestinian refugees, even though UN Security Council Resolution 194 calls on Israel to facilitate immediately the return of all Palestinian refugees. The same is true with the right of self-determination, which was not even mentioned in the Oslo Accords. In such clear-cut cases, what is there to negotiate? How much, or how little, is Israel prepared to agree to abide by the will of the international community? For by taking the UN Resolutions out of the “final status” negotiations you consign the UN itself to history. Maybe that is Israel's intention — the Israelis even today refer to the staff of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine as “unwanted nobodies”. It is clear that the EU has looked for an amendment to the Swedish initiative in order to not anger Israel. The reaction of the Israeli government has confirmed this, despite the angry reactions from some right-wing Israeli politicians. The reality is that the EU was not expected to take a strong decision that it would have to defend, and its history in addressing the Palestinian and other global issues demonstrates this. Israel was created by Europe to solve a European problem — its Jewish communities that were the focus of rampant anti-Semitism across the continent. In fact it is true to say that the whole map of the modern Middle East was created by the European powers, notably the British and the French with the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Intended to be a “bastion of European civilisation in a sea of barbarism,” Israel was planned and executed while Britain held the League of Nations Mandate to prepare the Palestinian people for statehood, all the while allowing Jews to migrate to Palestine and obtain land there. Even during the final years of the Ottoman Empire, pressure was brought to bear on Constantinople by several European countries to increase the number of Jewish immigrants to Palestine, then a province of the Ottoman Empire. Britain's record in Mandate Palestine was poor, to say the least. Jews were allowed to be armed and trained to fight, while the Palestinians were disarmed. As a result, after World War Two the Zionists had an army that was ironically ready to fight against the British and then the Palestinians. The Europeans supported Israel against the Arabs. They backed it in the 1948 War, and they supplied it with large quantities of weapons and asked it to participate in the Suez War in 1956. European technology, particularly from France, supplied nuclear know-how to Israel and masterminded the theft of heavy water and gunboats. France also supplied Israel with the sophisticated weapons used against the Arabs in 1967. Europe's record as a pro-Israel entity is long, and only the naive would think that the EU would go against type and take a meaningful stand against Israel. While the EU claims to support the establishment of a Palestinian state, to date no one has defined such a state. Supporting a connected and viable Palestinian state without full independence and self-determination suggests that the Europeans are not in favour of a truncated state separated by barriers and Israeli checkpoints, but the concept of “viable” is undetermined and has no basis in international law. Viability does not, however, equate with sovereignty in the Israeli version. This stress on viability is one way to avoid discussion about a truly independent state with sovereignty, control of its borders, a free economic system, diplomatic representation and, of course, an army to defend itself. The EU and the US avoid talking about these issues, tackling the idea of a Palestinian state as something that somehow has nothing to do with international law and conventions. A “viable” state acceptable to Brussels and Washington could, for example, mean that other countries provide for this state financially as long as it is committed to certain conditions, making its independence conditional on the collective will of others. Or it could mean that its borders with Egypt and Jordan would be open for trade and human traffic subject to European monitoring but based on Israeli conditions. Or it could mean that the education system would be inspected to ensure adherence to principles and directions dictated by third parties. The idea of viability could also be confined to cultural and religious matters, as if the Palestinians had no aspirations beyond eating, drinking and religious faith. And so on. None of this, of course, would make for a truly independent state. What the EU and US really want is a Palestinian state that will act as a security agent for Israel, be indebted to others to keep it in line, and have enough financial support to provide it with a degree of prosperity, just above the poverty line and not enough to allow its people a modicum of self-respect. European criticism of Israel has never gone beyond mild rebukes or economic sanctions on products from Israeli colony-settlements in the West Bank. In fact, even though economic boycotts helped to bring down apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, efforts to instigate boycotts of Israeli goods, academics and cultural activities have always been discredited as “unworkable”. But if the EU is to be taken seriously in its efforts to do something positive for the Palestinians, it should take practical steps, and an economic boycott of Israel would be a relatively easy place to begin. One of the ironic aspects of the EU's position in this whole situation is that the Europeans frequently pick up the bills to pay for the destruction caused by Israeli aggression. In a curious version of the Holocaust effect (Europe sins and the Palestinians pay the price), Israel sins and Europe pays the price. The unaccountable party in both cases is Israel. The EU is the second-largest donor to the Palestinians after the Arab states, and it provides sufficient funds as per the agreements made with Israel to support the Palestinian Authority (PA) and enables it to pay its employees. This is encouraged by both the US and Israel. After Hamas won the democratic elections in Palestine, the EU followed Israel and the US and agreed to boycott the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. For the past three years, the EU has also supported the illegal siege and blockade of Gaza, again at the instigation of Israel. Like the Americans and like the Israelis, who claim to promote democracy across the region, the Europeans' attitude totally contradicts democratic principles. The message to the Palestinians is clear: you must only vote for those parties we agree with. The democratic will of the Palestinian people counts for nothing in this hypocritical game. It is notable that EU opposition to Israeli policies intensifies in direct proportion to the amount of American criticism. When US President Barack Obama talked about West Bank settlements, so did the Europeans; when it faded from his agenda, it disappeared from that of the Europeans as well. These are strong indicators that the EU has not yet reached maturity in its foreign policy, for it is still heavily influenced by the US and Israel. Its attitude towards the situation in Gaza is a glaring example. Despite the evidence of a humanitarian catastrophe there, and now also war crimes, Europe continues to toe the Zionist line that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and the illegal collective punishment of the whole population is acceptable in order to “defeat terrorism”. European politicians apologise for state efforts to bring those accused of war crimes to court. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a terrorist as “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”. This describes perfectly the Israeli aggression against and blockade of Gaza, aided and abetted by the EU. The writer is a professor of political studies at Al-Najah National University in Nablus.
