The Building of a Wall, This Time by the EU

Cement, mortar and stone are being pulled out and slowly erected to separate Israel, except instead of the Jewish state building a structure for alleged security purposes, the European Union is separating itself from the Middle East’s only democracy by propagating a policy while being ignorant of the facts.

EU foreign ministers accepted a proposal today that calls for the creation of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinians welcomed the vote and some prominent leaders, including democracy activist Mustafa Barghouti who said the proposal should have even gone further in pushing for an immediate two state solution. In fact, Palestinian leadership, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have lobbied for a similar provision that would effectively found an independent state. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has struggled to build support for his two-year state building  plan that focuses on the development of institutions, such as economic, security, and education systems.

While many Israeli officials reject these provisions, the tenets of the EU proposal probably represent something similar to likely composition of an eventual resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a general plan, aside from a handful of details and one-sided explanations for the dispute, the proposal has some positive attributes that could represent the first step in finding a solution by providing Palestinians with sovereignty in an independent state.

It is not the details of the proposal that will potentially infuse a wedge in between the EU and Israel; instead, it’s the arrogance and naivety of the EU dictating policy on the conflict without considering the facts-on-the-ground.

In fact, Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn summed up European insight into the conflict when he said:

“I don’t really understand why Israel does not accept that Palestine consists of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.”

That’s right, you don’t and you therefore shouldn’t be making broad generalizations on one of the world’s most complicated conflicts. Israel can’t immediately accept this proposal because of the inherent security risks from terrorism that would most likely threaten the existence of the state. Similarly, by accepting the bifurcation of Israel with no commitments from Palestinians, the country would lose all negotiating power in future talks to establish a real peace process that would allow both Israeli and Palestinians to live peacefully in the future.

For those reasons, the establishment of a two state solution -with Palestine composed of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem as its capital- can only arise from a coordinated and probably lengthy process that involves confidence building measures on both sides. However, unlike in the past where the tiniest setbacks destroyed any accomplishments, each side must exert patience and understanding to help end one of the longest conflicts of the last century.

By passing this resolution, the EU only solidified the perception of Israelis and Jews that Europe continues to foster anti-Israel sentiments that purports one-sided, pro-Palestinian views. This EU proposal reinforces long-standing beliefs that the rest of the world, including the United Nations, have inherently anti-Israel, and often anti-Semitic tendencies. Instead of engaging in the peace process and working towards a solution, the EU foreign ministers attempted to infuse their will on a conflict they barely understand. This proposal could become the EU’s version of the UN’s “Zionism is racism” placard from the 1970s that slandered Israel and remains an unfortunate example of the institution’s bias.

Luckily, the United States understands the need for a different approach, a strategy that encourages the players to compromise on the conflict’s most central issues and not merely dictate a position from inexperience. U.S. negotiators achieved some successes in the Israeli-Arab conflict -including the Camp David Accords- and even set the ball in motion for the creation of an independent Palestinian state -through the Madrid conference in the early 1990s that fueled the peace process for 10 years. A State Department statement read:

“Our position on Jerusalem is clear. United States policy remains unaffected and unchanged: As has been stated by every previous administration which addressed this issue, the status of Jerusalem, and all other permanent status issues, must be resolved by the parties through negotiations.”

The lessons learned here are simple: dictating a position on the Israeli-Palestine conflict will only achieve to dim the prospects of peace by infusing a false sense of global involvement on the issue. Instead, Israelis and Palestinians should join U.S.-led negotiators to resume discussions that will establish a sovereign, independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem alongside a secure Israeli state with a Jewish identity.