The issue at stake
50+ years of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories have not existed in a vacuum. While much of the scholarly attention has scrutinized dynamics on the ground, the international context within which the occupation has persisted deserves equal scrutiny beyond the traditional reference to US foreign policy, because the sustainability of regional phenomena depends also on the international context within which they are embedded. This forum focuses on European actors and how they have interacted with the occupation, through an analysis of legal, political and socio-economic practices. It shows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been played out not only in the foreign policies of European countries and organizations, but also and increasingly in their domestic politics, policies and debates. The aim of this brief introduction is to highlight the main points and anticipate some of the key themes that weave the collection together, in terms of substance and scope.
First,an analysis of the occupationâs international context requires an engagement with international law, which might sound painful to the ears of political scientists or policy-markers, but at times of global contestation of the liberal order it is essential to remind ourselves how internationally agreed principles apply to this specific instance. This collection is based on the premise that all European countries have agreed that Israel is an occupying power, a position that the state of Israel formally rejects but all articles included here explore. In fact, as argued by the contribution of the UN Special Rapporteur, Michael Lynk, international law presents us with a paradox. While much of it has developed in response to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, it has had seemingly little direct impact on the conflict itself. This points to a potential avenue for the Europeansâ action, if they are to be true to their hard-won liberal sensibilities and contribute to a compassionate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely to re-assess the legality of Israelâs occupant status and give meaning to law through their actions. Moreover, international law has evolved and has codified the need for third parties to avoid de facto recognizing illegal situations. Azarova shows how this is particularly important for the European Union(EU), as it needs to ensure consistency between international law, EU law and domestic implementation within member states of EU related rules. The revisions to EU-Israeli relations that the EU has promoted in recent years should be read(also) in this light. Recognition is a theme that marks the most visible European action in current times, namely Swedenâs recognition of Palestine in 2014. As Eriksson recounts, the decision was a divisive one, but also marked the continuity of Swedenâs position on the conflict and it showed the current relevance of politics in law-related decisions.
A second crucial theme of the collection highlights the extent to which member states have outsourced to international organizations (and to the EU in particular) the responsibility to act on their stance about the occupation, while maintaining a softer line vis Ă vis Israel at the governmental level in bilateral relations, and how this puts governments often at odds with parts of their own citizens. As shown by Voltolini, France is a case in point, given that it has used considerable political capital on the international scene to champion the Palestiniansâ right to self-determination and condemn Israelâs occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT), by for instance promoting the EU policy of differentiation between Israel inside the Green Line and Israeli settlements. However, Franceâs bilateral relations and the governmentâs line on the domestic scene in the last decade have tended to skirt the issueâs implications, in order not to upset an increasingly warm bilateral relationship. In the analysis of Pace, Norway too aims to maintain excellent relations with both the Palestinians and with Israel, even when the majority of its population, which largely supports the EU differentiation policy, would suggest a tougher stance. The tension between governments and public opinion in Europe is further brought to the fore in the analysis of Germany and of the UK. There is a clear discrepancy between, on the one hand, the German governmentâs commitment and special responsibility towards Israel and, on the other, the Germansâ critical attitude towards Israel, as analysed by Busse. Criticism in Germany does not take the form of support of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, though, which is instead a major issue in the UK domestic debates. As Bicchi shows through the analysis of debates on UK campuses, the conflict is played inside the UK predominantly as a domestic issue, despite its international ramifications, and in London much of âwho can say whatâ about the conflict is once again debated and ultimately decided.
A last theme running across this collection pertains to the socio-economic dimension of the Europeansâ attitude towards the occupation. Often mentioned as a possible way forward, the âeconomic peaceâ option has clear limits. In particular, Martin shows how European governments and the EU have been slow to tackle corporate responsibility of European private actors on the ground, while European companies have often been swift to exploit economic opportunities. A governance gap remains, despite the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights agreed in 2011 â another avenue that European governments could explore, following in the path of civil society. In his exploration of public aid to the OPT, Wildeman argues that the Europeansâ traditional role as âpayersâ has largely adhered to the model provided by the World Bank. But the World Bank has increasingly avoided any reference to the occupation, thus countering the principles that the Europeans have codified in relation to the conflict.
Therefore, this forum presents a conversation between scholars belonging to different disciplines with a view to assess European practices in this case of prolonged occupation. The analysis is thus not addressing Israeli occupation per se or the Israeli-palestinian conflict or the impact of European practices thereupon. Rather, it focuses on the international context in which such an occupation is situated and specifically on the ways in which European actors relate to the occupation, recognize it or resist it. Ultimately, the picture that emerges is of a group of countries quick to condemn internationally, but in practice helping at a bilateral level to normalize the occupation against the will of parts of their population.
Would the picture have changed had a broader set of European countries been included? It would have been interesting to examine countries from Central and Eastern Europe, or from Southern Europe, in order to assess the range of variation. âNewâ EU member states, in particular, project an image that is intentionally different from the position of âolderâ member states, and it would have been interesting to check the substance below the surface. However, not only pragmatic considerations had to be taken into account, but also part of the rationale for this collection was exactly to probe how countries tradionally condemning the occupation at the international level behave in practice, and to highlight the tensions in these actorsâ practices. Future research will then be able to compare practices across different groups of European countries, as well as across different occupations â and continue the scholarly conversation and the political debate.
As the anniversaries of the 1967 war and of the Balfour Declaration are beyond us, it seems that the contradictions implicit in the conflict will continue to mark the Europeansâ action for the time to come. Hopefully, this set of contributions will help in clarifying the terms of the debate.
