On December 29, 2022, the most right-wing executive in Israel’s history sworn into the Knesset with the appointment of leaders of settler political movements to head key ministries.
And yet, the reason that sparked a national mobilization against the new executive led by Benjamin Netanyahu has little or nothing to do with his annexationist and anti-Palestinian agenda, but it concerns the proposal for judicial reform aimed at limiting the power of the Supreme Court. The reform has been temporarily shelved as part of a coalition agreement which provides for the establishment of a National Guard charged with handling the “Arab unrest,” anticipating even more violence against the Palestinians.
In fact, the number of Palestinians killed this year is set to surpass 2022 figures, with at least 95 dead since January, the result of frequent Israeli army incursions into the West Bank to stem the resurgence of Palestinian armed resistance to the occupation. In the same span of time, at least 16 Israelis have been killed.
The EU unprepared for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Alarmed by the escalation in Israel and Palestine, the 27 EU member states have launched a appeal to contain the tension and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, he invoked a new international effort to accompany the parties to the negotiating table. However, his call for “honesty” in recognizing the growing extremism in both Israel and Palestine does not contemplate the structural injustice suffered by the Palestinians and makes their right to self-determination conditional on negotiations and compromises.
The Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 they enshrined the idea that negotiations are the only means to achieve peace, consolidating the perception of a conflict between two equal parties. This dominant approach favors one “negative peace” – limited, that is, to the cessation of direct physical violence – with respect to achieving a just and lasting peace that addresses the roots of injustice.
While the European Union has embraced this criterion and supported the project of separation between Israel and an independent Palestinian state through the policy of differentiation, the reality on the ground has shown that his response was inadequate to deal effectively with the issue. As the two-state solution becomes ever less achievable, the EU continues to reiterate its stagnant official stance to cover up internal fragmentation and lack of political will by perpetuating a situation in which a just and sustainable peace remains elusive. In essence, the EU’s reluctance to call it like it is, hiding behind the IHRA’s non-binding definition of anti-Semitism, has allowed Israel to pursue its goal of colony expansion.
Europe’s stance on the issue not only undermines the EU’s ability to have a meaningful impact on the matter, but also undermines its image as a bulwark of international law. The continued use by the European side of a language centered on dialogue and (negative) peace not only indicates a detachment from reality, but also reflects the EU’s inability to keep pace with the paradigm shift currently underway in the international legal discourse around Israel-Palestine.
A neo-colonial occupation
Numerous documents from the United Nations (UN) and non-governmental organizations question the representation established after the Oslo accords, thus marking a partial return to the prevailing discourse before the 1990s. These include reports from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA), of important international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’tselem e Al-Haqas well as reports by the UN Special Rapporteurs Michael Lynk e Frances Albanian and of Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.
Despite the differences, many of these reports are united by the adoption of a reorientation of perspective that includes the recontextualization of the current situation within a historical analysis that goes beyond 1967 and 1948, echoing the Palestinian concept of “ongoing Nakba”.
Bring attention back to historical roots of the “Palestinian question” suggests that describing the situation in Israel and Palestine as a mere territorial dispute is inadequate and, at the same time, requires redefining it through the lens of settler-colonialism, racial discrimination and apartheid. Long before it re-emerged in public discourse, several Palestinian authors, including Fayez Sayegh and Edward Said, have highlighted il colonial character of the Zionist project taking over its annexationist target.
This change of discourse is shedding new light on structural, systemic and asymmetrical nature of Israeli domination over the Palestinians, which goes far beyond the legal extremes of military occupation. In turn, the paradigm shift entails an overcoming of the “peace negotiations” in favor of decolonization, justice and self-determination. Rather than maintaining the status quo for the sole benefit of the colonial regime, it recognizes the need to address root causes, remedy systemic injustices and, in the spirit of international law, does not undermine the Palestinian right to self-determination, return and resistence.
Therefore, the international paradigm shift suggests that attributing the current resurgence of violence to the new extremist government would be limited, as this does not constitute an anomalous “anti-democratic drift”, but represents yet another piece in the colonial project cultivated by Israeli governments over the decades.
However, a key difference in the current actualization phase of the annexation project lies in the amplified levels of publicity, normalization and formalization. Current developments in Israel and occupied Palestine demonstrate that there has never been a more urgent time than now for the EU to answer the alarm bells. A decisive and courageous action is needed so that the reality of the facts is acknowledged and a firm position is adopted in defense of international law, which restores priority to de-occupation, justice and Palestinian self-determination.
Last call for the EU
In this context, the EU is timidly expressing its displeasure with Israeli conduct but its expressions of condemnation are far from representing a course correction and instead result in the usual acrobatic attempts to avoid acknowledging Israel’s responsibilities. If the EU is really willing to relaunch an Israel-Palestine peace initiative, it would have to deal with the ineffectiveness of the approach maintained so farstop putting the Palestinian cause on the back burner and reconsider the reality on the ground.
Il “support package security, economy and politics […] if the parties were to reach a peace agreement” is doomed to fail, since as long as Israel continues to pursue its colonial goals with impunity, there will never be any Israeli interest in pursuing a just and equitable peace and guaranteeing the independence of the Palestinian state , regardless of the government’s political orientation and how much the EU is willing to invest. Furthermore, the Palestinians are no longer willing to compromise their right to self-determination “in the name of peace”, as it is evident that such compromises have so far involved their surrender to Israel’s gradual annexation without bringing any benefit to the condition in which they live.
Given the situation and with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the (il)legality of the occupation called for by the UN General Assembly on the horizon, the current European policy of differentiation towards Israel-Palestineas conceived and piecemeal implemented by the Member States, is not sufficient. The EU has the power to do more: instead of using trade and research funding programs as a bargaining tool to bring Israelis to the negotiating table, it should leverage his position to hold Israel accountable in full compliance with international law giving priority to the legitimate aspirations and rights of the Palestinian people. Only in this way can the EU hope to achieve a lasting solution based on (positive) peace, (human) security and justice not only for the Palestinians, but also for the Israelis.
Copertina EPA/ABIR SULTAN’s photo