Glen Ruffle: Anti-Israeli feeling now inherent in EU’s DNA

The European Union has more than a few reasons to approach relations with the Middle East with utmost caution, and more than a small historical debt to the Jewish people. Yet Israel has noted with concern that, as the EU has welcomed more and more immigrants in a desperate attempt to boost economic growth via immigration and upping the population, so too has Islamism increased in Europe, and so too have the foreign policies of European capitals turned colder towards Israel.

Settlements
On the issue of Israeli settlements, the EU has placed its stance along with much of the wider international community in opposition. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, stated unapologetically that settlements make a two-state solution more and more difficult to achieve and are illegal, refusing to accept any change to the pre-1967 borders.

Ashton’s, and the EU’s arguments, don’t stand up to analysis, but there are some grander points that should be outlined here in more detail.

Ashton referred to settlements and the Israeli security barrier as ‘illegal’. This refers to a ruling by the International Court of Justice in 2004 made without the participation of Israel, and concerted UN pressure on Israel.

Legitimacy
Firstly, there are questions of legitimacy. The UN was originally an organisation for the exercise of global control by the super-powers of the day: the US, Soviet Union, UK, France and China. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice has only the authority states allow it, as it lacks any ability to actually force a response or result from a judgement, and is not democratically accountable.

Yet, as noted before by the European Journal, the EU as stated in the Treaty of Lisbon, is ardently supportive of the United Nations system (see Article 3:5, 21:1 and 2 of TEU, etc), and the general global governance construct, pitting itself against states and the notion that countries have sovereignty.

The EU thus is not only a supporter of the UN, but a role model for the UN. The EU’s attempts at suppressing national sovereignty are self-survival mechanisms, but also evidenced in the general vitriol shown to the Bush Presidency in the United States, Israel in general, and the cautious relations seen with Russia and China. All these states are confident and assert their own independence and self-interest on the international scene, undermining the ideology resident in Brussels.

The EU has often been pushed forward by the ECJ delivering rulings that increase its power, beginning with the 1964 Costa V ENEL case that stated EU law is above national law. The ICJ has also sought to establish supranationality over intergovernmentalism.

The Brussels mindset also hinders the EU’s ability to comprehend situations, condemning Britain as a disruptive trouble-maker because the Commission refuses to accept that supranationality is not accountable and lacks legitimacy, yet feels it can be enforced. As such, states that have a confident identity and seek their own interest are first in Brussel’s ideological firing line.

Identity
The concept of Israel and the Jewish identity is also a stumbling block for Europe, representing an antithesis of the EU. Jewish identity transcends states, penetrates every nation where Jews live, and has survived against every other faith system with its own unique view since the dawn of time. Israel is based on a real history (shared experience and united culture), territory (a clear geographical area), and religion/culture/tradition (connecting the past with now and ingraining identity into the hearts and minds of Jews).

Brussels can offer none of this. To the extent that Europe has an identity, it is one shared by tiny minorities across the EU. It has no shared culture, despite efforts to manufacture one. The geography of Europe is itself disputable (De Gaul used to block Britain, France has also blocked Turkey), the Commission of course would rather reduce national borders to regional units, and religion and tradition across Europe are simply used to the extent that they further the aims of the Commission elite, and then discarded. The November 2012 Eurobarometer report number 78 cannot hide the fact that the percentage of Europeans with a totally negative view of the EU has increased 10% in two years, while those with a positive view have continued to drop as in a freefall descent

However, consider the pan-Arabist dream of unity: the idea that Lawrence of Arabia helped foster, that Nasser of Egypt vigorously pursued: the idea of a united entity, combining the different states of the Arab world into one, has strong correlations with the EU dream, even though the EU itself lacks the ethnic component essential to such a dreams fulfilment. Hence the EU’s finding of more and more in common with the Arab world than with Israel, despite Israel’s economic dynamism and internal political stability.

Subsequently, the combination of politically active Islamists in Europe, the pan-Arabic ideal’s similarity with the European dream, and the supranational ideology of the EU are all helping to bias Brussels against Israel.