The recent record of the EU, and of Britain in particular, on the Israel/Palestine conflict has been dire, as I have discussed in detail elsewhere (see also Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit; chap. 5).
After Palestinians elected Hamas in January 2006 the EU followed the US and Israel in imposing on them "possibly the most rigorous form of international sanctions ... in modern times" as punishment for their audacity. Not even the formation of a national unity government on a platform that implicitly recognised Israel was sufficient to persuade the EU to abandon its policy of "protracted collective punishment" and resume aid to the PA. Inevitably, the national unity government collapsed triggering a descent into full-blown civil war, stoked by the US' and Britain's arming and training of an anti-government militia, that culminated in Hamas's forcible takeover of Gaza in June 2007.
The idea of levelling sanctions against Israel, on the other hand, is considered too absurd to even merit discussion, despite Israel's gross violations of international law, UN resolutions and elementary human rights. On the contrary, ignoring Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's desperate pleas, EU member states voted unanimously in June to upgrade its economic, academic and diplomatic ties with Israel despite a massive escalation [.pdf] of violence and a dramatic acceleration of settlement construction. The move provoked the House of Commons International Development Committee [.pdf] to express "surprise" that "the EU has decided to upgrade its relationship with Israel while it continues to flout international law".
The legal basis for EU-Israel relations is the EU-Israel Association Agreement [.pdf], which among other things grants Israeli exports preferential access to EU markets. Article 2 of the Agreement states that "[r]elations between the parties" and "all the provisions of the Agreement" shall be "based on respect for human rights and democratic principles". This, it stresses, "constitutes an essential element" of the Agreement. Despite this "essential" clause, the EU has consistently refused to condition the continuation of the arrangement on Israel's respect for international law and Palestinian human rights.
Given this background, Wednesday's decision by the European Parliament to postpone to January (or, more generally, "until Israel gives serious signs of goodwill demonstrated by tangible results on the ground") a vote on further boosting ties with Israel came as something of a surprise. Prior to the plenary vote (the motion for postponement passed 194-173 thanks to the support of the Socialists, the Greens and the European Left) Fayyad had again implored the EU to avoid strengthening relations with Israel while it "violated all its commitments, including on human rights issues". This time his audience appears to have been receptive. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was confronted with 'a barrage of criticism' from EU lawmakers, with one MEP declaring that Israel "has been found in breach of international law on so many occasions ... that most people’s patience has been stretched to breaking point". Evidently the situation in Gaza is now so horrendous that even the EU feels compelled to make some gesture in the way of protest. Undoubtedly the letter-writing campaign by Palestinian solidarity activists in advance of the vote played a role as well (some replies from British MEPs have been posted here and here).
While the deferral of a vote to boost EU-Israel relations might not seem like a big deal in itself, it comes in the context of several other signs that the EU states might be considering a change of approach. Last week, for example, Ha'aretz revealed an internal EU document that has Israeli officials all in a tither. Written by the French Foreign Ministry (since France currently holds the EU presidency), the document supposedly calls on the EU to encourage US involvement in the 'peace process'; to closely monitor the first phase of the road map (which requires, among other things, a complete freeze on settlement construction); and to work towards "re-opening ... Palestinian institutions " in East Jerusalem, including Orient House, the PA's former de facto Foreign Ministry and a symbol of 'Palestinian claims to sovereignty in East Jerusalem'. The document also states that the EU,
"expects a complete freeze of all settlement activities including natural growth, including in East Jerusalem ... The EU will continue to send clear messages to Israel and examine practical ways to exert more influence on these issues, including on goods from settlements."
This in turn comes in the context of the British government's recent moves (that again seem to have been driven at least in part by activist pressure) to limit EU imports of Israeli goods that have been produced in the settlements, or at least to ensure that they are labelled accurately - a step that, again, has 'infuriated' Israeli officials. If the recent successes for the boycott movement represent the start of a trend, Israel is right to be worried.
What precisely is motivating these apparent shifts in policy is unclear. While popular activism probably plays a role I doubt it's the main factor. More likely, in my view, European states (including Britain) are trying to take advantage of the transfer of power in the US, feeling that Obama will permit them to take a more reasonable approach to the conflict, his campaign rhetoric notwithstanding. The EU's de facto support for the occupation has always been driven more by subservience to US foreign policy (its role has been to "complement the [US] leadership", as one Foreign Office minister and MP put it) than by sympathy with Israel's aims. A 1970 Foreign Office memo explained, "we [i.e. Britain] cannot afford to distance ourselves too far from the United States position [in the Middle East] without risk of injury to the general Anglo-US relationship". As one European official explained in response to an argument for EU engagement with Hamas,
"[w]e know you are right, really we do ... but we will not break with the Americans. We just cannot do it."
A perception that Obama will be open to a slightly less partisan approach to the conflict could therefore explain some of these apparent EU breaks with past policy. Alternatively, as I say, it could simply be that the "unprecedented" [.pdf] humanitarian crisis in the occupied territories has now deteriorated to such an extent that even the EU feels obliged to make a few gestures in the way of even-handedness.
On the other hand, of course, on the main issues - chiefly its refusal to engage with Hamas; its failure to honour its legal obligations and oppose Israeli crimes with anything more than words; and its unwillingness to publicly pressure the US to join the international consensus in calling for a genuine two-state settlement - the EU's position remains dreadful. Moreover two days ago Israel signed an agreement with NATO to strengthen military co-operation, which somewhat undermines the optimistic speculation above.
Lord Malloch-Brown, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, recently declared that "[t]his is the moment for Europe to engage" in the 'peace process'. He has elsewhere argued that Britain is not a "front-line player", but rather provides "diplomatic support", creative thinking and economic assistance, primarily through the Quartet and the EU. In fact Britain, and the EU more broadly, can play an important role in pressuring the US and Israeli government to respect international law and accept the international consensus two-state settlement by, for example, refusing to co-operate with the criminal siege of Gaza and halting arms sales to Israel (which has been considered a key "target market" for British arms under New Labour) until it dramatically improves its human rights record. This would strengthen the position of accomodationist 'moderates' within the US and Israel and demonstrate the international isolation of the US/Israeli position on the conflict. Currently the main role of the EU, through, for example, its membership in the US-dominated 'Quartet', is to provide Washington cover as it facilitates Israeli rejectionism and subverts Palestinian self-determination. The EU is a very important trading partner for Israel and has the capacity to bring considerable pressure to bear on the Israeli government. As former-President Jimmy Carter argued earlier this year, Europe should stop being so "supine" and drastically alter its policy towards the conflict, or else risk losing the possibility for a two-state settlement forever. Conditioning, in practice as well as rhetoric, the EU-Israel Association Agreement on Israel's respect for human rights and international law would be an excellent start.