• Europe should play a political role in the Middle East conflict  - Maher Abukhater
Israel is happy with Europe playing only the role of financial provider to the Palestinians.

• Europe is incapable of doing more  - Yossi Beilin
The huge European bloc has become clumsy and awkward. It has no real ideological common denominator.

• US appeal addressed primarily to Europeans  - Simon Petermann
As in the Balkans, the EU can play a constructive role in the Middle East.

Europe should play a political role in the Middle East conflict
 Maher Abukhater

Are the Europeans doing enough for the Middle East peace process? If the question has to do with financial support, the answer is obviously "yes". But if the question is about political involvement, the answer is clearly a big "NO".

The European Union has not hesitated for a moment to contribute financial support to sustain the Palestinian Authority and to keep it afloat in very difficult times. European aid to the Palestinians from the start of the Oslo process in 1994 to date has reached almost five billion Euros, most of it in the last few years, making it one of the largest aid providers to the Palestinian people.

Israel is happy with Europe playing only the role of financial provider to the Palestinians. It does not want Europe to have any active political role and it has made that very clear. Israel actually has not needed to invest too much effort at keeping Europe at bay. All it has to do is remind Europe of its recent history toward the Jews and the Holocaust and Europe quickly backs away from doing anything that would provoke Israel, choosing instead the easy way out through only unquestionable support for whatever the US does, while staying on the sidelines.

Unlike the United States (which has a policy of blind support for Israel for various reasons but mainly due to control by the pro-Israel lobby of the US Congress that as a result ties the hands of the White House), Europe has actually adopted policies toward the Middle East far advanced to those of the US. If Europe was allowed to play the US role of honest peace broker, many Palestinians think a solution would have arrived a long time ago.

But every time chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat is asked why the Palestinians do not push Europe to get more involved in the region's politics, he says that the European Union has 27 member states with 27 different foreign policies. This is true, but at the same time it is the diplomatic way of saying "we do not want anyone other than the US to get involved because only the US can deliver Israel".

Thus, Palestinians share part of the blame for keeping Europe away because of their mistaken belief that only the US can deliver Israel. But with the US administration's hands tied because of the strength of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, neither has the US been able to deliver and Palestinians have been left alone in the cold.

During her visit to the region early this January, Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign and security policy chief, said that her trip "so early in the year is an expression of my personal commitment and that of the European Union and its 27 member states to peace in the Middle East".

She suggested a meeting of the Middle East Quartet, which in addition to the EU, includes the US, Russia and the UN, as early as February during the Munich Security Conference, and an April meeting for the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) for the coordination of assistance to the Palestinians, which she will personally host in Brussels. She took another step in expressing readiness to host a second donors' conference in Europe later in the spring in support of the political process.

A look at all of the above and previous strong statements from the EU Council on Foreign Relations, the latest of which came on December 13, 2010 and which included strongly-worded positions and timelines for the negotiations, show that Europe is actually ready to get fully engaged.

So where is the problem? If Europe, obviously a world power to reckon with, is ready to get engaged not only financially, but also politically, and Palestinians are finally realizing that putting all their eggs in the US basket was a bad strategy, why isn't there a bigger European political role? Is it Holocaust guilt feelings? Is it US objections that are in reality Israel's objections? Or is it the fact that Europe is not united on one Middle East policy?

European officials recently said the EU was not ready to continue financing a political process that is not going anywhere. Maybe it is time for Europe to put its money where its mouth is. Europe can and should play a political role, simply because since the Middle East is in Europe's backyard, any conflict here is bound to have an impact on the continent.-Published 13/1/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Maher Abukhater is a Palestinian journalist and former managing editor of Al-Fajr English weekly and the Palestine Times.

Are the Europeans doing enough on behalf of peace in the Middle East? It depends whom you ask.

The Israeli right wing, for example, is convinced the Europeans are doing too much. The Europeans convene seminars and conferences, award scholarships and prizes to peace activists, bring Israelis and Arabs together, and fund a major portion of the Palestinian Authority's activities. Their leaders and foreign ministers gather and make decisions that are more congenial to the Palestinians than to the Netanyahu government. They flirt at times with Hamas, suggest to the US administration to take more determined action on behalf of Israeli-Palestinian peace, fund Israeli and Arab NGOs that carry out research about peace, visit the region frequently and make declarations that support peace and a two-state solution.

Hamas believes that Europe is a lackey of the United States. Despite its enthusiasm over the democratic elections in the PA, Europe hastened to join the US in boycotting Hamas until it fulfills certain unacceptable conditions. True, there are Europeans, including members of the European Parliament, who seek to recognize Hamas and even sailed for Gaza on the Mavi Marmara flotilla. But the European Union's official policy will have nothing to do with Hamas. Accordingly, in Hamas' view, Europe is incapable of seriously contributing to change in the Middle East situation.

In the eyes of the Israeli peace camp, Europe does not do enough. Of course, no one can underestimate the EU's large and ongoing financial contribution, as well as that of its individual member states, to the building of a future Palestinian state. Nor should we belittle the activities of European representatives to the PA, or the occasional formal policy formulations or the consistent European position regarding Israel-Arab peace based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967. Yet there can be no doubt that the European Common Market of six and then nine members that in 1980 ratified the Venice declaration--determining, before anyone else in the world, the illegality of the settlements and the need for Israel to withdraw from the territories conquered in 1967--would not pioneer such a decision today, when the European Union counts 27 members and intends to expand even further.

The huge European bloc has become clumsy and awkward. It has no real ideological common denominator. Even when, regarding the Middle East, it tries to bridge the gap with words, these statements rest on the most minimal consensus. Consequently, Europe suffices with the status quo and submits to the leadership of any and every US administration. The mistake of acquiescing in the US-led Quartet, where the EU, UN and Russia play a secondary role, has exposed the EU's awful weakness. It has conceded not only the sovereignty of its individual members in the realm of foreign policy, but even its own sovereignty as a bloc in this regard. Europe doesn't initiate, doesn't surprise, doesn't think outside the box. It pays, then complains about "being a payer, not a player", as if the role of player can be awarded the EU by anyone but itself.

Europe of the twenty-first century is a huge and unwieldy bloc that recently chose its leaders based on the assumption that they should not stand out beyond their own blatant mediocrity. While EU member states lick their economic wounds, the union debates whether to choose help from the IMF or collective responsibility. Everyone is dealing with a totally superfluous question that is draining their time and energy: what will the European Foreign Ministry look like, what will its future embassies look like, and what will be the role of the multinational diplomats as opposed to the national diplomats in each legation.

Europe does not do enough to advance peace in our region, but it is incapable of doing more. It is busy with itself, and cannot afford to engage in divisive internal arguments. The future of the euro bloc is (understandably) much more important to Europe than whether it is more realistic at present to foster a permanent status agreement between us and our neighbors or to try for an interim arrangement. If Europe continues to fund the PA, finance research projects and surveys and support people-to-people activities; if it agrees in principle to absorb Palestinian refugees under a future agreement and to participate in a multi-national force deployed in the West Bank under peace--this will definitely be an achievement, considering the major changes that have taken place in the EU since the 1990s.-Published 13/1/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Yossi Beilin, a former minister of justice, currently chairs the Geneva initiative and is president of Beilink.

Since the Obama administration has abandoned the idea of getting a freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, everyone agrees that the peace process in the Middle East is once again deadlocked. Of course, this is not the first time. But the changing strategic landscape in the Middle East, instability in the countries neighboring Israel and the aggrandizement of Iranian power all heighten the risks in a region that is increasingly a geostrategic black hole.

The absence of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue to destabilize the region. The Middle East remains fertile ground for the radicalization of large segments of Muslim societies across the world, fuelled by social disruptions and preyed upon by reinvigorated religious fundamentalists and extremist groups that preach messianic ideologies.

The recent resolve of the Obama administration to obtain some results within a reasonable time was a call to countries that can contribute positively to the resolution of the conflict. And this call was addressed primarily to the Europeans. Indeed, what happens in the Middle East fundamentally affects European interests. Europe has been involved for a long time and has no choice but to remain so. The future of the Middle East is not some distant strategic concern, but rather a neighborhood issue.

Many European leaders have been saying for years that the European Union is not just a payer but a full player in diplomatic, economic and security affairs. But the problem is that European diplomacy in the region is more declamatory than effective and is almost always dependant on American initiatives. EU plans concerning the future of the region avoid sensitive issues in order to avoid criticism, primarily from the Israelis. When it comes to adopting a firm position toward Israel, one likely to revive peace negotiations with the Palestinians, the EU never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity--according to the formula devised more than 40 years ago by Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban to describe Palestinian diplomatic behavior.

Three days after Obama's announcement, 26 former European officials, led by Chris Patten and Hubert Vedrine, sent a letter to the president of the European Council in which they reminded Israel of its obligations under international law and recalled EU responsibilities deriving from Europe's close ties with Israel and the Palestinians. They suggested linking the development of agreements between the EU and Israel to the freeze on settlement-construction in the West Bank.

Some European political leaders expressed support for these proposals. But far from following this invitation to display firmness, the EU Council of Foreign Ministers, divided as usual, settled for a timid approach. It rejected any form of pressure on Israel and reiterated its willingness to recognize a Palestinian state "when it is appropriate". The 27 also insisted they would not recognize any changes to the 1967 borders "other than those negotiated by both parties".

This position obviously contrasts with that adopted by Latin American countries like Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, which recently recognized unilaterally a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. It is, however, identical to that adopted by Washington, which has abandoned the idea of getting a settlement-construction freeze and has resumed indirect negotiations.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect more from the EU. Its decisions are taken on the basis of intergovernmental cooperation and require a consensus among the 27 member states. In some cases, this consensus can be obtained easily. For instance, in the recent past the Palestinian paramilitary groups Islamic Jihad, Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades were placed on the EU list of terrorist organizations due to the political use of violence. The EU has also instituted a process of reassessment of its relations with the Palestinian Authority, which it has heavily subsidized for years and which is highly dysfunctional in many of its institutions and procedures, and has insisted on more effective and accountable governance in view of the potential misuse of funds. In order to help the PA strengthen the rule of law, two civilian missions are on the ground: EUPOL COPPS, which is operational in Ramallah, and EUBAM, which is on stand-by for Gaza.

On the Israeli side, the EU has repeatedly stated that the settlements in the West Bank are major obstacles to peace, but it has also turned a blind eye to the import of goods produced in the settlements. Only recently has the EU finally become more assertive and begun to apply "rules of origin" to these goods, which exclude them from preferential tariffs under the trade pact with Israel.

More and more people in Europe are advocating economic sanctions against Israel to compel it to comply with international legality. These requests usually come from the European Parliament but generate a limited response within the EU. In fact, if such a decision should be taken, it would mean self-inflicted punishment because the EU has a large bilateral trade surplus with Israel: while EU imports from Israel are at 8.8 billion euros, EU exports to Israel totaled 11.4 billion euros in 2009. If the EU restricted Israeli exports, Israel would surely retaliate and limit imports from Europe and the entire exercise would be counter-productive.

Moreover, politically such a move toward trade sanctions would require a consensus among the 27, an objective currently clearly out of reach, as Germany, the Netherlands and some other member states are adamantly opposed to such pressure on Israel. And even if we assume that this opposition could be overcome, it would be detrimental to the EU's political credibility to use economic sanctions. Indeed, by using economic leverage on Israel, the EU would ipso facto lose its status of legitimate interlocutor.

At the end of the day, can the EU do more than express fine words that are in any case subject to criticism? It needs to be more active in three areas: framing the negotiations, peace-keeping and long-term solutions.

A lasting peace cannot come about without a return to serious direct bilateral negotiations. All constructive initiatives (including unofficial agreements), proposals and ideas should get full EU support. The EU should also signal its readiness to assume the role of peace-keeper--an issue that could arise if, for instance, an agreement among the Palestinians is reached in the Gaza Strip. With a clear mandate and the cooperation of the parties, a peace-keeping force would have a positive impact. Finally, the EU should play a greater role in final status issues by suggesting creative solutions.

As in the Balkans, the EU can play a constructive role in the Middle East. It should not pretend to be the equal of the US as a global power, but it can play a complementary role that could, in the long run, prove beneficial to both Palestinians and Israelis.-Published 13/1/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Simon Petermann is honorary professor at the University of Liege and the Free University of Brussels. He is a former political adviser of EUBAM.