‘Israel’s right to defend itself has a limit’: Top EU diplomat Borrell on Israel, Netanyahu and the Gaza war
The EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell on 13 November 2023
Dahlia Scheindlin writes in Haaretz on 29 August 2024:
Outgoing European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has presided over a body that seems stymied by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Since his five-year term began in 2019, the bloc has been caught between aspirational rhetoric about a two-state solution – its decades-old policy – and lack of unified action to advance this in practice. It has earned criticism from supporters of a two-state solution for not doing enough, while many Israelis view even Europe’s statements to advance its own policies as hostile to Israel.
Borrell, as high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission (commonly known as HRVP), has represented what looks like the progressive wing of the union regarding the conflict. Borrell’s term will end later this year, and his successor is Kaja Kallas, the former prime minister of Estonia.
During the Gaza war, he has been outspoken about both the horrors of October 7 and the devastation of the Strip. He has called for a cease-fire since the first hostage deal from November, and for targeted sanctions against both Israeli ministers and violent settlers, while lamenting that the EU has not been more active.
Last week, Borrell sat for an interview with Haaretz in Santander, in his native Spain, following a panel about the future of Europe and the Middle East (full disclosure: I was a panelist). He spoke of the distinction between criticizing the Israeli government and Europe’s commitment to the existence of Israel; explained that Netanyahu’s current coalition has made it more difficult than ever for international bodies to play a constructive part in the region, by accusing all of its critics of being antisemitic; and stressed that humanitarian aid to Gaza is inadequate without a political solution.
This discussion has been edited for length and clarity, with follow-up input from Borrell by email after the interview.
Please elaborate on a statement you made in our public talk, to the effect that Europe recognizes the right of Jews to self-determination in their state, in security.
“It seems that some Israelis doubt that we support the right of Israel to exist. But for Europeans, the existence of the State of Israel is a fact that we defend. We are strongly committed to it. No one in the EU says that Israel should be thrown into the sea. “At the same time, we also support the idea that Palestinians have a right to their own state, and they have a right to self-determination, and these positions do not contradict.
“Talking about the two-state solution, one state already exists. Israel is a powerful, democratic state, with a sound economy, a vibrant society and a strong army. But Palestinians are far away from it. We support the existence of [Israel] and its right to defend itself. But like any right, the right to self-defense has a limit, which is the respect for human rights and international law.
Israeli governments, and this one in particular, tend to think of anyone who doesn’t align 100 percent with its position to be against it – and not just against the government but against the state, against the people.
“Additionally, I absolutely reject any form of antisemitism, any hate speech. Anything that discriminates against people based on their ethnic belonging is something that must be absolutely condemned.
“The day before the attack of Hamas on the kibbutzim [October 7], I was in Kyiv visiting Babi Yar, accompanied by the rabbi of the small synagogue that was built there. We visited the site of the [World War II] massacre and held prayers. It was the very day before, in the evening. The following day I flew home, and from 6 A.M. the phone was ringing. I said to myself, ‘My God, again another attack.’ Soon it became evident that it was a massive, horrific attack against the Jews, which we have condemned in the strongest possible terms.
“But it must be clarified that criticizing the Netanyahu government cannot be considered antisemitism. [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu can be criticized, like any government in the world. I often talk about ‘the Netanyahu government’ instead of Israel. These are two different things. “I must also recognize that the European Union has never fully invested its political capital in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We did so with the Venice Declaration back in 1980, when we put the concept of the ‘two-state solution’ on the agenda for the first time. But since then, the EU has structurally withdrawn from this conflict. “We agree on the idea of the two-state solution. But we do not act accordingly to advance its implementation. We make many statements supporting this solution, but not more than that.”
What do you see as the failures or successes in the long-term involvement of the EU?
“I can say that the Palestine-Israel conflict is one of the most difficult issues to build EU27 consensus on, probably more than on any other issue, and this is a real problem. If you want to intervene effectively, you need to be united.
“Recently, given the growing violence in the West Bank, we have taken actions sanctioning certain violent settlers and organizations. But we did so following the U.S., and to a much lesser extent than Canada. History matters a great deal, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is connected to the history of some member states more, and very differently, than to others.”
In what way does history matter for those countries? What do they have in common?
“History matters a great deal for countries like Germany and some other Central European countries. “The shadow of the Holocaust is the shared background for Germany, and to a lesser extent for Austria, Hungary, Slovakia. They are more reluctant to question Israeli government policies, including with regard to its military conduct in the Gaza war.”
What about the countries that are more sensitive to Palestinian self-determination? What do they have in common?
“I don’t see much common historic memory between, for example, Slovenia and Spain regarding the Middle East. Spain has always been very sensitive to the Palestinian issue, and recognized Israel quite late. When I volunteered on Kibbutz Gal-On in 1969, near Be’er Sheva, where I met my first wife, I remember that my country did not have diplomatic relations with Israel yet. Going to work at a kibbutz was quite exceptional at the time. In the case of Ireland, it could be tied to their memory of British occupation, and their long struggle for independence.
“It is important to note that when these countries recognize the rights of Palestinians, and the Palestinian state, that doesn’t make them opponents of Israel. But Israeli governments, and this one in particular, tend to think of anyone who doesn’t align 100 percent with its position to be against it – and not just against the government but against the state, against the people. And accusations of antisemitism come quickly. I think it was Henry Kissinger who complained about this attitude. It’s a completely misleading approach.”
What are the top changes needed in EU policy toward the conflict?
“I think that we have to go beyond just humanitarian support for the people in Gaza. I regret that in my term of office I did not see the conflict moving toward a settlement. We were reactive at best, passive at worst, certainly not as proactive as we should have been.
“When I came into office, my staff said, ‘Don’t invest in this unsolvable problem. Many have tried and no one has succeeded. And nowadays it looks quite calm.’ But that’s not a reason – the problem was there, boiling silently below the surface. It was clear that this conflict would not stay silent forever. I tried to keep it on the diplomatic agenda and warned against thinking we can leave it unresolved. Little did I know that this would prove true, so fast, and in such a horrific way.”
Mutual denial, total lack of empathy
In an op-ed entitled “30 years after Oslo – we must not give up on Middle East peace,” published in the Jordan Times on October 5 last year, Borrell wrote: “The need to change the status quo is not felt as acutely in Tel Aviv as it is in Ramallah, but the conflict is not going away: the idea that Israel could go forward without making peace with the Palestinians is a dangerous illusion.”
The EU’s top diplomat says that since October 7, he has “tried to convey a voice of reason and responsibility by reiterating that the best security for Israel is the recognition of Palestinian state. The best security for Israel comes from the existence of a Palestinian state. I know it is difficult to defend this idea under the current circumstances. But if you are against this solution, you need to say what solution you propose.
“I know that the current Israeli government takes just the opposite position, that the very existence of a Palestinian state would threaten Israel’s security. But this isn’t just for the sake of the Palestinians – it’s also for the sake of Israelis. You can only build lasting peace with another state that has its own sovereign territory, which can take responsibility for peace on the borders, like Egypt and Jordan. Peace agreements have brought Israel security on its borders for decades, and they even helped to take down Iranian missiles recently. This should not be taken for granted. But you need to make peace with the Palestinians, not only with the Arab states.
“If you simply pull out troops without a peace agreement, terrorist groups will claim it is the victory of their resistance, like in Gaza [in 2005] and Lebanon [in 2000]. But the alternative cannot be eternal occupation – not only because the International Court of Justice says so [but because] military means alone cannot guarantee long-term security, as we have tragically seen.
“The key is mutual acceptance and recognition. Instead, what we see today is mutual denial, at least in public opinion, and total lack of empathy for the pain of the other. It is difficult to move from mutual denial to mutual acceptance, but I believe it is the only way to avoid the repetition of tragedies like October.”
When you say security depends not only on military means, can you elaborate?
“You can continue to deny the Palestinians [their state]. You can try to keep Gaza under a blockade and keep the West Bank under strong pressure, but this will not ensure that [you get] peace. You’ll have to invest so much military capacity to repress Palestinian resistance that you will never be 100-percent secure.
“The Germans and the French were not secure when they were at peace that depended on building armies, each always trying to stay ahead of the other, until one day these efforts generated a conflict. Now, the Germans and French feel absolutely secure. Why? Because they decided to live in peace [and] mutual recognition. They decided to overcome the antagonism of identities, which was an extraordinary, historic breakthrough.”
But is that because Germany suffered total defeat? Is that what we should understand for Israel-Gaza?
“Germany was totally defeated, and we defeated Nazism, but it was not denied its existence as a state. Afterward, we invested a great deal in Germany’s total reconstruction. We did not say, ‘You have been defeated, therefore you don’t exist anymore – you have been defeated, annihilated and eliminated.’ On the contrary, we avoided making the mistakes of World War I, after which Germany was so severely punished by the winners that this created the resentments that led to World War II. Instead of saying ‘we are going to eliminate you from the face of the earth,’ we said, ‘let’s help them to get back on their feet peacefully.’
“But the situation in the Middle East today is that two people are fighting for the same land, and that makes it different from our situation. In the Middle East, two people have legitimate claims to the same land, and this problem has to be solved.
“Shimon Peres did much to resolve the situation by way of mutual recognition. I had a very good personal relationship with Shimon. Your polls show that up to 70 percent of the Israeli population supported the idea of two states in the past, but something went wrong, starting with the killing of [Yitzhak] Rabin, the leader who signed the Oslo Agreements. We must revive this, otherwise we’ll have generation after generation of conflict, funeral after funeral.
European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell speaking to a soldier as Israel’s then-Foreign Minister Eli Cohen listens on, during a visit to Kibbutz Be’eri near the Gaza border in November 2023
Should there have been more European intervention in the cease-fire efforts? Could there have been a more active role?
“I tried to make the Europeans speak with a single voice and participate in the negotiations, and to bring in the voice of reason. But this is one of most divisive issues of our time – not only in Europe but around the world. “For example, some would prefer to focus on humanitarian support at present rather than political issues. [And] we must urgently try to alleviate the suffering of the people of Gaza. But we are not facing a natural disaster or an earthquake. I believe we need to look for the political roots of this problem, the cause of this suffering. Everyone says, ‘Too many people have been killed.’ And then what? More humanitarian support does not reduce the number of people being killed.”
How far has your call for sanctions on settlers gone?
“We have created a specific framework for sanctions in this kind of context. We have applied this sanctions regime against a very few individuals, and one or two organizations. I believe this policy must continue. Recently, considering the incitement to hate coming from some ministers of the Israeli government, I have considered them for this sanctions regime. But it depends on the unanimity of member states.”
Does that mean there’s not much of a chance?
“It should not be a taboo to consider sanctions on those who send messages of hate. The fact that member states can discuss it already sends a message. It was difficult to agree on sanctioning some violent settlers and groups, but we eventually did it. When the minister in charge of the police [Itamar Ben-Gvir] goes to the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque to pray, this will not create the minimum conditions to avoid violence. Such provocations have been widely condemned and must be avoided.”
The only realistic solution is partition
A week after this interview was conducted, Haaretz reported that Borrell is set to ask the European member states to pass a resolution approving sanctions against Ben-Gvir and fellow extremist minister Bezalel Smotrich.
Do you have a list of tactics to increase the pressure?
“We are looking to the Americans, because we wanted to work in a coordinated matter. Canada has been taking tougher measures; following what Canada has been doing will be a good approach, by giving us real leverage – especially with regard to violent settlers and illegal land occupation.”
Does the EU have any leverage over Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran?
“The EU has listed Hamas as a terrorist organization, that’s how we see them, and we don’t have contact with Hamas. “With Hezbollah, we distinguish between the military and the political branch. When I was in Lebanon, I met with the leader of the parliamentary faction of Hezbollah. We talk to them – they have ministers in the Lebanese government, they have members of the Lebanese parliament. “I went to Lebanon to ask for restraint, to de-escalate the Lebanese-Israeli border and to avoid spillover of the conflict. Let’s talk to those who can escalate or de-escalate – that’s Hezbollah. [But] we don’t talk with the military branch, which we also consider to be a terrorist organization.”
What do you think of the common Israeli belief that Israel is singled out by the international community – that the United Nations, EU and other bodies pressure only Israel?
“No. The UN as representative of the international community is not against the State of Israel. On the contrary, Israel was created by a UN resolution. Once again it is the confusion between a government, and a state and its people. For example, recently, [Nicolás] Maduro is criticizing me, saying that I am ‘attacking Venezuela.’ No, it’s not the country, it is the government.”
“By passing UN Security Council or General Assembly resolutions criticizing the Netanyahu government actions, the international community is rejecting actions and policies implemented by these governments. The recent ruling by the ICJ states clearly that this expansion of settlements in occupied territories, this de facto annexation and deprivation of the Palestinians, who are under military occupation, is against international law. They have been condemned, including in EU statements, because we consider them a violation of international law.
“But Netanyahu does not care. Despite warnings and concerns in our statements, we see that the process continues. The Israeli government cannot be surprised by the fact that if resolutions are not fulfilled, it affects the image people have about Israel. The advisory opinion by the ICJ on the occupation could not be clearer. It’s also a warning to everybody stating that you should not cooperate with this occupation.”
The European Union was forged out of extreme conflict, then created an association to share economic opportunities, freedom of movement, certain sovereign powers. Is this an approach for Israeli-Palestinian peace in the future? Instead of two states with a wall, two states cooperating like the EU?
“This would be ideal. But I think that for the time being, the relationship will be very difficult, and maybe for a time some kind of separation will be unavoidable. Later, abolishing borders, allowing free movement, sharing economic development is much better than having everybody inside their borders, not cooperating, not reaching out to the others, and spending fortunes on military capacities.
Pictures of Israeli hostages are put up along the road at Kibbutz Saad, southern Israel, August 2024
“In the short term, the only realistic solution is partition, so that everybody can be in their homeland, feeling secure. Later, if they build trust, then the best thing to do is what the European states have done: we have essentially abolished the borders. Well, they exist, but they are invisible. I can go from Santander to Riga without feeling that I am crossing an international border – no visa, no passport needed. We created a common market and a single currency.
“I was struck to learn that the suffering of the people in Gaza has not generated much empathy among most Israelis – as if everybody in Gaza is guilty so everyone, including women and children, must pay for what Hamas has done. This is a big mistake,” says Borrell. “After what has happened between Palestinians and Israelis, let’s go step by step. But one thing is for sure: If we continue on the same path, we will be facing traumatic events like [today]. Violence creates resentment and only peace can avoid this. Looking for peace requires accepting the other. It’s more difficult to build peace than to continue war. But we have continued making war for how many years?
“[This] has to be done in order to provide common security. Peace and security go hand in hand – you will not have security without peace.” He taps the table. “And peace requires recognition of the other.”
What do you hope to accomplish in your visit to the region in September?
“I’m planning to go to Egypt, Israel and other parts of the Middle East soon, to try and build opportunities for dialogue between the two civil societies, to listen, and to bring the voice of peace. I know this must be done more frequently. We are organizing meetings with civil society Israelis and Palestinians, and we would like to create a network of people talking with each other. We have to avoid confrontation and increase mutual knowledge and mutual recognition. It has to happen in civil society, but in the end it’s political power that has to do it. International courts of justice interpret the law, but it’s the politicians who build peace among people.”
This article is reproduced in its entirety