EU should raise costs of occupation


December 11, 2014
Sarah Benton


Ephraim/Taybeh checkpoint, one of the many that restrict all Palestinian movement in West Bank. At this one, a Palestinian was crushed to death in the crowd squeezed into the metal cages. Photo by David Heap/EAPPI

Can Europe Stop Israel From Electing Another Right-Wing Government?

Israelis keep voting in prime ministers who refuse to end the occupation. Maybe some pressure from outside can finally change that.

By Matthew Duss, Foreign Policy
December 11, 2014

For decades, Israel has deepened its occupation of Palestinian land and expanded its settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank with virtually zero consequences. As a result, successive Israeli governments have had no reason to cease these policies and Israeli voters have had no reason to be concerned with voting for governments who carry them out. But with new Israeli elections scheduled for March 17 and signs of increasing pressure from Israel’s allies in the West, this could finally be about to change.

Last month, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on an internal European Union document detailing a menu of possible new measures toward Israel in response to “acts by the Israeli government that are liable to make the two-state solution an impossibility,” such as settlement construction in specific areas in and around Jerusalem. Measures under discussion included limiting economic cooperation with Israel, compulsory labeling of products made in West Bank settlements, and ceasing projects with companies that operate in the occupied territories. On the more extreme end, the document also proposed a “no contact policy with settler organizations/Refus[ing] to engage with settlers, including public figures and those publicly rejecting the two-state solution” — similar to the current ban on officials meeting with Hamas.

The new EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini quickly assured the Israeli government that the document was only a “technical working hypothesis.” But it should be clear that the promulgation of such a document is an important step toward such measures being more seriously considered.

“The fact is that there is an agreement among all 28 member countries of the European Union to discuss measures against Israel, and that is what should worry the government in Jerusalem and the Israeli public,” high-ranking European diplomats who were involved in discussions about the document told Haaretz.

When Israelis vote for a new government on March 17, they could very well return to power yet another government committed to undermining the possibility of a Palestinian state. The fact that such elections might be said to be about “nothing,” as the Jerusalem Post’s Gil Hoffman wrote recently, indicates exactly the problem with the Israeli electorate: Voters currently see no costs or consequences to the occupation, now almost a half-century old, and thus feel no urgency to support leaders committed to ending it.

By beginning to make those costs clear, as floating the possibility of sanctions does, the EU could play an important role in sharpening the choice before Israeli voters: If Israel ceases settlement expansion and works to end the occupation, it will enjoy a closer and more fruitful relationship with the EU. If it continues to consolidate the occupation and expand settlements, it will face increasing isolation and sanctions. As Israelis select their next government, they should carefully consider the ramifications of these options.

The current government has demonstrated its commitment to the latter, making clear that it has no intention of ending the occupation any time soon — or ever. Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon stated recently that the Palestinians could have autonomy, but not a state. Economy Minister Naftali Bennett publicly rejected the two-state solution in a November New York Times op-ed and again recently at the annual Saban Forum in Washington. As for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, any hopes that his late-coming support for a Palestinian state was genuine have been doused by his insistence on a perpetual Israeli military presence in the West Bank — that is, perpetual occupation.

Despite the possibility of prolonged estrangement from Europe, when it comes to producing a positive change in behavior, sanctions have a spotty record. Multilateral economic sanctions on Iran arguably helped produce more substantive Iranian engagement around the nuclear negotiating table, but this took years of noose tightening and considerable economic pain to work. The negative pressure was also coupled with positive messages from Washington making clear that a negotiated solution was preferred. When it comes to the EU and Israel, a sanctions-focused strategy needs to be managed even more carefully. The EU must make clear to the Israelis that they have off-ramps available, so as to minimize the perception of “siege,” which could result in even further support for hardline ultra-nationalist parties.

It’s worth remembering, though, that there is a recent example of anti-settlement measures producing positive outcomes. In July 2013, as Secretary of State John Kerry was trying to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks, the European Union announced the adoption of new settlement guidelines stating that future economic agreements between the EU and Israel would exclude entities operating in the occupied West Bank.

Initially, some feared that pressure over the settlements would undermine Kerry’s efforts by hardening both Israeli and Palestinian positions. But both U.S. and Israeli officials said shortly after the resumption of talks that the EU measures had the opposite effect. Palestinian Authority President Abbas felt that the EU measures affirmed his position and made it possible for him to give up his demand for a settlement freeze, whereas Netanyahu “feared that [the] Israeli public would blame him personally for Israel’s isolation.” While it would be incorrect to say that the EU announcement itself was the reason for the talks restarting, the addition of pressure at a key moment created a positive dynamic that incentivized both sides to re-enter talks.

But there’s a big difference between putting pressure on the leadership of a country to make concessions and putting pressure on an electorate to choose better leaders. It may be easier to get Netanyahu to see the writing on the wall than it is to get millions of voters to realize that their country could be headed toward isolation. But it’s worth a try, because one thing is certain: Focusing only on positive incentives hasn’t worked.

It’s a fool’s game to try to make any predictions about the outcome of the Israeli elections this far in advance, but there seems to be a growing consensus among Israeli analysts that Netanyahu miscalculated in breaking up his government, and his low polling numbers show that, after six consecutive years as prime minister voters are growing tired of him. The question is whether any center-left candidates, such as the recently announced joint list between Hatnua’s Tzipi Livni and the Labor Party’s Isaac Herzog, can offer Israeli voters a compelling vision for Israel’s future — one that involves ending the settlement project and the occupation.

Could the threat of new EU measures help complement that vision? I put the question to a former Israeli diplomat last month. He was careful in his response but unequivocal. “I don’t like to argue for pressure on my own country,” the diplomat told me, “[but] when Israelis have to line up in front of European embassies for visas, they will topple the government.”

Israeli voters need to appreciate that elections have consequences. They need to understand that they cannot continue to elect governments committed to defying the overwhelming international consensus in favor of a two-state solution. Clearly, demands must be made of the Palestinians, too, particularly on corruption and political reform. But we should also recognize the massive power imbalance that gives Israel control over Palestinians’ everyday lives, which defies any sort of lazy equivalence. And if, on March 17, Israelis select another government that will put the country on track for another decade of the occupation they should expect to face consequences.

Matthew Duss is president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, based in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter: @mattduss.

© Copyright JFJFP 2024