EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (European Union / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

A top European think tank is urging the European Union to take concrete measures to keep open a window for the two-state solution. The report, published two weeks ago, urges European countries to exempt settlements goods from Israeli-European trade agreements, to refrain from contacts with the West Bank’s new university in Ariel and even impose visa requirements on settlers.

The report (PDF), published by the Middle East-North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations and written by Senior Policy Fellow Nick Witney, claims that European support for the Palestinian Authority has created “a culture of dependence,” while removing the occupation’s financial burden from Israel. Due to Israeli restrictions and past agreements which prevented real economic developments, “state building efforts have reached a dead end,” the paper states.

Similar suggestions were raised in April by former European leaders and negotiators in a letter to EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton. Both the letter and the ECFR paper recognize the diplomatic vacuum created by the U.S.’s inability to confront Israeli governments over the occupation, and urge EU action.

The ECFR paper has a couple of interesting observations. First, it recognizes that the political elites in Europe, and not the public, are at the heart of the problem. While the European public is more and more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians under occupation, EU foreign policy is “on autopilot,” sticking to the Oslo paradigm and framework, even when it’s clear that it serves to maintain the status quo (one could claim that this is the opposite of the American problem, where popular support for Israeli policy remains high even as the elites are beginning to question it). The paper cites economic interests – Israel being an important trade partner of many states – and successful lobbying efforts by Jerusalem as possible explanations for the lack of coherent and unified action by the EU.

The paper also recognizes the failure of positive incentives vis-à-vis Jerusalem:

There is simply no appetite among European governments for anything that might look like sanctioning or punishing Israel. Yet finding positive incentives – carrots, as opposed to sticks – is difficult also. Israelis already enjoy the main things they want from Europe: commercial access to the world’s largest market, visa-free travel and a unique position in the EU’s research and innovation programs.

The ECFR doesn’t have a unified position and the new paper only represents the opinion of its authors, and not that of the entire think-tank. However, put together with the February report by EU diplomats regarding settlements, the decision by 13 member-states to proceed with labeling settlements products and the April letter (discussed above), one can point to a clear trend toward greater involvement in the diplomatic process.

Haaretz’s Barak Ravid reported Sunday morning that the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council was set to vote on directives for the labeling of settlements products this week (the principle decision on the matter already passed last year). However, following pressure from the U.S. – which, according to Ravid, was prompted by an Israeli request – the vote was postponed until June, after Secretary of State John Kerry plans to report on his efforts to renew direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

It seems that Israel’s effort to prevent labeling settlements products is likely to fail: the labeling directives for member states will eventually pass and might even be implemented. I doubt, however, if the impact of such a step will be more than symbolic in nature. The settlements’ share in Israel’s total exports is not that large, and much of their sales take place in the local market. Given the strong representation settlers enjoy in the current Israeli coalition, I believe they would be able to get at least some government compensation if European trade measures lead to financial losses.

The heart of the matter is that as a whole, the Israeli public views the status quo as the preferred alternative in its relations with the Palestinians – a notion that has only been strengthened by regional changes and the international community’s inability to mobilize on the issue. For years, critics of the occupation have been warning Israel of international isolation due to the country’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank, while the exact opposite has been taking place – Western support for Israel is at an all-time high. Under such circumstances, further statements or symbolic gestures are almost useless, if not outright harmful.

The settlements are an Israeli national policy and not just an initiative of the settlers themselves, so targeting them on their own will be a difficult, probably even impossible task (there are more people employed by the state in the OPT per capita than anywhere else in Israel; as such they are immune to outside pressure). Other recommendations in the ECFR report – like those concerning travel visas for settlers or allowing Palestinian legal action against the occupation – seem to have a greater potential for bringing results, but at the same time they are not likely to be adopted anytime soon.

Altogether, I think that one of the most important developments in the past few month has been the European recognition of the need to give up the Oslo framework. Yet the European Union’s complex consensus mechanisms prevent fast, radical measures, even when they are clearly viewed as necessary. If EU member states want to see change take place on the ground, they will have to adopt a more responsible and pro-active policy on Israel/Palestine, instead of just following the EU’s lead.

Related:
EU diplomats recommend sanctions against Israeli settlements
Former senior EU officials: ‘Oslo process has nothing more to offer’

Catherine Ashton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Past statements, wrote the officials, have “not been matched by any action likely to improve the situation” (European Union / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

A group of senior former European officials, including former prime ministers, foreign ministers and diplomats, is urging the European Union to abandon the Oslo process and come up with new urgent measures that will put an end to the occupation, Ali Gharib reports for Open Zion. In a letter addressed to the Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the European Union, Catherine Ashton, the former officials write:

We are […] appealing to you, and through you to the members of the Council of Ministers, to recognize that the Peace Process as conceived in the Oslo Agreements has nothing more to offer. Yet the present political stalemate, while the situation deteriorates on the ground, is unsustainable.

Perhaps the letter’s greatest novelty is a recognition that the West is contributing to the occupation. ”It is time to give a stark warning that the Occupation is actually being entrenched by the present Western policy,” wrote the former officials.

Among the signatories to the letter are Guiliano Amato, Former Prime Minister of Italy Lionel Jospin, Former Prime Minister of France Miguel Moratinos, Former Foreign Minister of Spain and Javier Solana, as well as the Former High Representative and Former NATO Secretary-General. Solana was also the EU’s representative in the Quartet who was supposed to lead the peace process.

The signatories of the letter express disappointment from the (lack of) leadership on the part of the U.S., and are now calling for “a realistic but active policy,” which will include a recognition of the state of affairs in the West Bank as occupation; an action against the erosion of the ’67 borders by Israel, and perhaps most important – a re-evaluation of the financial arrangements with regards to the Palestinian Authority (in other words, the 19 signatories want the EU to stop bankrolling the occupation).

The letter has no formal bearing, but that fact that it includes some of the senior EU officials who dealt with the Middle East peace process attaches an extra value to it. This is also a clear vote of no-confidence for the American leadership, perhaps due to the degree of Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy in the region.

A fundamental change in EU policy is somewhat unlikely, mainly due to the consensus mechanism which is used to determine foreign policy. Out of the 27 member states, there are always a few governments – even one is enough – who back the Israeli policy in the occupied territories, or at least oppose any effective measures against it. Currently, the Czech Republic is considered the most supportive of the Israeli policies.

Still, some changes take place on state level: Akiva Eldar reported yesterday in Al Monitor that 13 member states of the EU including Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands, support labeling of products imported from West Bank settlements.

The following is the full letter which was sent to Representative Ashton by the former EU officials:

THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

Dear High Representative

We, the under-signed members of the European Eminent Persons Group on the Middle East Peace Process, are writing to you to express our strong concern about the dying chances of a settlement based on two separate, sovereign and peaceful states of Israel and Palestine.

The Eminent Persons Group is composed of a number of former Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers and senior officials of EU Member States who have decided to concert their efforts to encourage a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

We have watched with increasing disappointment over the past five years the failure of the parties to start any kind of productive discussion, and of the international community under American and/or European leadership to promote such discussion. We have also noted with frustration and deep concern the deteriorating standards of humanitarian and human rights care of the population in the Occupied Territories. The security and long-term stability of Israel, an essential objective in any process, cannot be assured in such conditions, any more than the legitimate rights and interests of the Palestinian people.

President Obama made some of these points during his March 2013 visit to the region, particularly in his address to the people of Israel, but he gave no indication of action to break the deep stagnation, nor any sign that he sought something other than the re-start of talks between West Bank and Israeli leaders under the Oslo Process, which lost its momentum long ago.

We are therefore appealing to you, and through you to the members of the Council of Ministers, to recognise that the Peace Process as conceived in the Oslo Agreements has nothing more to offer. Yet the present political stalemate, while the situation deteriorates on the ground, is unsustainable, given the disturbed politics of the region and the bitterness generated by the harsh conditions of life under the Occupation.

The concern of the European Union at this deterioration, clearly expressed in a series of statements, not least the European Council Conclusions of 14 May 2012, has not been matched by any action likely to improve the situation. The aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis and the interests of the European Union, prominently referred to in those Conclusions and in other relevant EU documents, cannot be met by the current stagnation.

It is time to give a stark warning that the Occupation is actually being entrenched by the present Western policy. The Palestinian Authority cannot survive without leaning on Israeli security assistance and Western funding and, since the PA offers little hope of progress towards self-determination for the Palestinian people, it is fast losing respect and support from its domestic constituency. The steady increase in the extent and population of Israeli settlements, including in East Jerusalem, and the entrenchment of Israeli control over the OT in defiance of international law, indicate a permanent trend towards a complete dislocation of Palestinian territorial rights.

We have reached the conclusion that there must be a new approach. Letting the situation lie unaddressed is highly dangerous when such an explosive issue sits in such a turbulent environment.

A realistic but active policy, set in the context of current regional events, needs to be composed of the following elements:

- a sharper focus on the essential need for a two-state solution, as the most likely outcome to offer lasting peace and security for the parties and their neighbourhood and the only one recognised by UN resolutions as just and equitable;

- an explicit recognition that the current status of the Palestinian Territories is one of occupation, with responsibility for their condition falling under international law on the occupying state;

- an insistence that Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 lines are illegal, must cease being expanded and will not be recognized as one of the starting points in any new negotiations;

- a stipulation that any representative political organisation with a valid claim to participate in negotiations must renounce the use of violence outside established UN norms;

- the renewal of efforts to establish a unified Palestinian representation of both the West Bank and Gaza, without which a comprehensive peace cannot be successfully negotiated and the absence of which serves as an excuse for inaction;

- the encouragement of reform of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, including representation of all the main Palestinian parties committed to non-violence and reflecting the expressed wishes of the resident Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza;

- a vigorous international drive for the implementation of much improved humanitarian and human rights conditions in both the West Bank and Gaza, monitored by the United Nations, whatever the state of peace negotiations might be at any time;

- a reconsideration of the funding arrangements for Palestine, in order to avoid the Palestinian Authority’s present dependence on sources of funding which serve to freeze rather than promote the peace process;

- a clear and concerted effort to counter the erasing of the 1967 lines as the basis for a two-state outline. This should include a clear distinction in EU dealings with Israel between what is legitimate – within the 1967 lines – and what violates international law in the Occupied Territories;

- a clearer willingness within the EU to play a political and not just a funding role and to resume a more strategic dialogue with the Palestinians.

For all the good sense of EU statements on this issue over the years, the EU’s inactivity in the face of an increasingly dangerous stagnation is both unprincipled and unwise. European leaders cannot wait for ever for action from the United States when the evidence accumulates of American failure to recognize and promote the equal status of Israelis and Palestinians in the search for a settlement, as accepted in United Nations resolutions.

Later generations will see it as unforgivable that we Europeans not only allowed the situation to develop to this point of acute tension, but took no action now to remedy the continuing destruction of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. We regard it as essential for EU interests that the Council of Ministers and you take rapid action to correct this unacceptable state of affairs.

We are sending copies of this letter to Members of the Council of Ministers and to the US Secretary of State.

Members of the EEPG send you their respectful greetings.

Signed

Guiliano Amato, Former Prime Minister of Italy; Frans Andriessen, Former Vice-President of the European Commission; Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Former Vice-Prime Minister of the Netherlands; John Bruton, Former Prime Minister of Ireland; Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Former European Commissioner and Former Foreign Minister of Austria; Teresa Patricio Gouveia, Former Foreign Minister of Portugal;  Jeremy Greenstock, Former UK Ambassador to the UN and Co-Chair of the EEPG; Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Former Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden; Wolfgang Ischinger, Former State Secretary of the German Foreign Ministry and Co-Chair of the EEPG; Lionel Jospin, Former Prime Minister of France; Miguel Moratinos, Former Foreign Minister of Spain; Ruprecht Polenz, Former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the German Bundestag; Pierre Schori, Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Sweden; Javier Solana, Former High Representative and Former NATO Secretary-General; Peter Sutherland, Former EU Commissioner and Director General of the WTO; Andreas van Agt, Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands; Hans van den Broek, Former Netherlands Foreign Minister and Former EU Commissioner for External Relations; Hubert Védrine, Former Foreign Minister of France and Co-Chair of the EEPG; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Former President of Latvia.

Related:
EU diplomats recommend sanctions against Israeli settlements
Resource: EU Heads of Mission report on Israeli settlements

Maale Adumim settlement near east of Jerusalem (Activestills.org)

European diplomats in the Palestinian Authority called on Brussels and their respective European states to take concrete measures to stop Israel’s “systematic, deliberate and provocative” settlement enterprise, including preventing economic and financial support for settlements – actions that could described as sanctions.

The report, obtained by +972, describes Israeli settlements as “the biggest single threat to the two-state solution,” and recommends specific measures that Brussels could or should take in order to mitigate that threat.

Read the full report here

Two of the recommendations most likely to irk Israel, directly relate to the economic activities of European companies that profit from settlements.

In addition to the standard practice of excluding settlement products from the free trade agreement between the EU and Israel, the report recommends “guarantee[ing] the consumers’ right to an informed choice,” asking the European Commission to provide guidelines on labeling of settlement products.

More significantly is the recommendation that EU governments “[p]revent, discourage and raise awareness about problematic implications of financial transactions, including foreign direct investment, from within the EU in support of settlement activities, infrastructure and services”

It is followed by a recommendation that the EU inform businesses of the “financial and legal risks involved in purchasing property or providing services in settlements.”

The implication of this recommendation is that any EU-based company that invests in and provides services for settlements could be held legally (and financially) liable for supporting the illegal enterprise. While European companies like Veolia have long been targeted by activists for owning and operating land fills, waste-water treatment facilities and buses that serve Israeli settlements in the West Bank, implementing this recommendation would constitute a direct and official warning to similar companies by the EU itself.

In addition, the report recommends that individual EU member states explore the possibility of denying entry to known individual violent Israeli settlers.

It also places particular emphasis on East Jerusalem and Israel’s settlement activities there, ranging from construction that aims to completely isolate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, to the use of archeological activities for furthering Israel’s political and ideological goals.

The diplomats also recommend creating voluntary guidelines for European tour operators in order to ensure they do not intentionally or inadvertently support Israeli settlement activities in East Jerusalem, such as the City of David archeological park run by settler organization El-Ad.

The non-binding report is not the first of its kind; a similar report last year carried many of the same recommendations, although they were fewer and not as harsh.

Although the document reflects common thinking among European diplomats, lack of action by the politicians they work for is indicative of the political difficulties in applying serious pressure to further the EU’s foreign policy aims: ending Israeli settlement construction and achieving a two-state solution.

The likelihood of Europe applying serious pressure against Israel based on this report alone, without the support of elected politicians, is close to non-existent. However, the mere existence of such scathing documents coming out of capitals that are traditionally supportive of Israel is in itself significant.

Read an analysis of the report here.

Related:
Could UNHRC’s settlement report put the ‘S’ back in BDS?
Dim prospects for international pressure to end occupation

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So far, the recent diplomatic failures have not hurt Netanyahu  (photo: Avi Ochayon/ Government Press Office)

Israeli ambassadors in several European capitals have been summoned to receive angry responses to Jerusalem’s recent decision to construct 3,000 new housing units in the West Bank settlements and promote the zoning plan for E1 area, northeast of Jerusalem. E1 is the only remaining corridor between the large Palestinian cities in the West Bank. It is the final brick in the great project Likud and Kadima prime ministers have been carrying out in the last two decades, which is designed to encircle the Palestinian part of Jerusalem with Israeli settlements and neighborhoods in such a way that would permanently prevent and division of the city, or any other territorial compromise, for that matter.

A spokesperson for the German embassy expressed “great concern” over the decision and called the Israeli government “to reconsider it.” The head of the French foreign office told the Israeli ambassador that the settlements are “illegal by international law.” Similar messages were expressed by the Netherlands and the British governments.

Greater Jerusalem Map, Updated 2011. The E1 area will complete the Jewish “ring” around Palestinian East Jerusalem, and will disconnect the north of the West Bank from its south (source: Ir Amim)

The language of the European responses seems unprecedented. Haaretz reported this morning that Britain and France were considering recalling their envoys to Tel Aviv (a report later confirmed by the British network Sky). Such a move seems highly unlikely, but the very notion marks a new low point in relations between the Israeli government and its European allies. After four years in power, Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have managed to isolate Israel in a way never seen before.

Yet in the internal Israeli game, all of this won’t matter that much. The Israeli public has grown used to hearing European and American reports which condemn settlement construction projects. The same headlines have been declaring that “the American administration is dismayed” or that “the European Union condemns…” for the last four decades. It seem that Netanyahu won’t lose support with the public, meanwhile Likud ministers have been going around explaining to the public why only “light measures” against the Palestinian Authority were taken.

In the early evening, a government spokesperson told Haaretz that the decisions Israel has made – among them the confiscation of almost half a billion shekels ($120 million) of tax money that Israel collects for the PA – will not be reconsidered. The government also announced that further steps will be considered if the PA takes any other unilateral actions. Jerusalem, it seems, simply sees Palestinians – their foreign policy included – as its prisoners, subjects to sticks and carrots according to the degree to with which they stay in line with the Likud’s policy objectives.

It is not surprising though that the diplomatic drama of the last couple of weeks is met with indifference among both the Israeli and the Palestinian public. I highly recommend reading Haggai Matar’s account of the sad “independence night” in Ramallah. Clearly, any sense of Palestinian national pride that the UN vote could have brought has been overshadowed by the understanding that at this point in time, there is nothing further from reality than the establishment of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state.

The debate over what contiguity means reflects the low point in which we find ourselves. Under the Oslo accords, Israel specifically committed to viewing the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as one unit. A couple of years ago, I posted an official IDF slideshow, casually mentioning the separation of the Gaza and the West Bank as an Israeli policy objective. Today, with the settlement of Ariel (16 miles into the West Bank) and its access road seen by the government as one of the future “settlement blocs” which will be kept in Israeli hands, and with construction in E1 moving forward, it seems that the West Bank alone will soon be torn into three pieces. The Gaza Strip – whose border is open only from its Egyptian side – could just the same be on a different planet. And the future? Even if Israel was to remove some 50 to 80 thousands settlers – clearly a fantasy at this point in time – all the Palestinians could hope for is something between the famous “Palestinian Archipelago” map and open-air prison which is now Gaza.

European policy, even in its most engaged moments, is using the conceptual framework of the 80s and 90s to deal with a problem that has gone through considerable changes. More failures are all but inevitable. I seriously doubt whether the European Union is able to enforce its own ban on products from the settlements, but even if it does, it would be like trying to turn a car around by arguing with one of its wheels. The economy of the occupation – for Palestinians and settlers alike – is part of the Israeli economy by now, just as the military justice system in the West Bank is part of the Israeli court system. The argument over a single house here or a neighborhood there has clearly run its course.

The Palestinian problem is a human and civil rights problem disguised as a diplomatic issue. An adequate approach to the occupation would focus on the problem at hand and not the desired solution, which at the moment seems more like a fantasy. The problem is the military control over the lives of millions which has lasted for over half a century, and the absence of political and human rights that comes along with said rule. A Palestinian state is one possible solution to this situation, but it shouldn’t be a policy objective on its own. Treating it like one gives the Israeli leadership an incentive to use the Palestinians as prisoners and their land as a bargaining chip. Israel should face demands that have to do with Palestinian rights – including a just solution to the refugee problem – accompanied by adequate policy measures. Among other things, the result will be a more honest public debate in Israel, and a policy which is more accountable for its long term effects.

Related:
Palestinian President Abbas: The only leader fighting for the Jewish state
Resource: What is the E1 area, and why is it so important? 

By Ir Amim

E1 (derived from “East 1”) is a term applied by the Ministry of Housing to an area located just east of the Jerusalem municipal boundary, on the hills between Ma’aleh Adummim and Jerusalem. It lies north of the Jerusalem-Ma’aleh Adummim road and edges the Palestinian towns of Anata, Abu Dis, Azariya and A-Zayim. E1, which covers some 12,000 dunams (12 sq. kilometers), is part of the planning area of Ma’aleh Adummim. The main artery between the northern and southern West Bank runs through E1.

In recent years, Israel has begun building and settling the area. The development plan for E1 includes the transfer of the West Bank (Judea & Samaria) Police Headquarters from its present location, and the construction of at least 3,500 residential units, a large commercial center, and more. Plans for the E1 area make no reference whatsoever to the local Palestinian population.

Construction in the E1 area commenced in 2004 under the direction of Housing Minister Efi Eitam. The work was illegal because no building permit had been issued. As a result of international pressure, construction was halted a short time after it began.

At the beginning of 2005, the Ma’aleh Adummim municipality approved two detailed urban plans for the development of the area, as mentioned above: one for approximately 3,500 housing units (apartment buildings and villas), and the second for the transfer of the police headquarters. The plan generated harsh criticism from the American government and the European Union. Both demanded that the plan be frozen, on the grounds that it violated Israel’s commitments according to the ‘Road Map.’ Instead, they maintained that the future of this territory be decided upon by a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Following this pressure, the Israeli government froze the project in 2004. However, building of the police headquarters was continued on the grounds that, like army bases, the police station would not be seen as creating facts on the ground, but rather as a building that could be removed.

On November 2012, following the Palestinian statehood bid, the Netanyahu government announced that it will promote a zoning plan for E1 which will allow the construction of 3000 housing units for Jews.

Here is the planned construction area for E1:

Map of the planned settlement at E1 (by Ir Amim)

As can be seen in this regional map, construction at E1 will cut the West Bank in two (the area to the east is a desert, and on a very different altitude).

East Jerusalem and the Judea Desert (A Google Map)

_______________

Ir Amim (“City of Nations” or “City of Peoples”) is an NGO which focuses on Jerusalem within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Ir Amim seeks to render Jerusalem a more viable and equitable city for the Israelis and Palestinians who share it. The above text and the maps appear here with the permission of Ir Amim.

WATCH Roee Ruttenberg reporting from Madrid.

Police block the main street leading to the Spanish parliament in Madrid, 14 Nov 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

Supporters of Spain’s two biggest unions participate in Madrid’s anti-austerity demonstration, 14 Nov 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

Spanish demonstrators to NO to spending cuts, Madrid, 14 Nov 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

Anti-Merkel and anti-Rajoy poster on display during Madrid demonstration, 14 Nov 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

Madrid street after police cleared protesters, 14 Nov 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

KIEV, UKRAINE – On Sunday, millions of Ukrainians cast their ballots in thousands of polling stations across the country in the parliamentary elections. Some did so in Eastern Ukraine, where a love for the Russian language and (often) a longing for them-good-ole-Soviet days still prevails. There, particularly in densely populated cities and towns, the ruling “Party of Regions” does particularly well. (It is those places which also report their results first, giving those that are strong there a slight public relations advantage when it comes to exit polls and preliminary results.)

Party of Regions rally in Kyiv, Oct 26, 2012 (photo: DS)

Some cast their ballots in Western Ukraine, where many do not speak Russian and stick to their national language, Ukrainian. It is there that many are frustrated with the government’s handling of affairs, its love of the Russian language, its closeness to Moscow, its growing distance from Brussels, and its general distaste – they would argue – for European ways.

It is in the Eastern part of Ukraine that those opposing the government of President Viktor Tymoshchenko – his own position not up for re-election until 2015, though his parliamentary party was – showed this lack of faith at the ballot box. They chose parties they know are unlikely to join forces with the ruling Party of Regions. One of those parties, the “United Opposition” is not actually a party, but rather an umbrella of eight different parties all united to defeat – or damage – the ruling party. The party’s leader, the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshchenko, is currently serving a seven-year prison term (ironically for a deal she signed with Russia), though she is still very much a figure in the elections. In her absence, the United Opposition rides off of her image, failing to harvest a strong personality as its leader. (The de facto leader is Artseniy Yatcheyuk. He is a former Foreign Minister, but when I met him, he came across a bit like an accountant.)

Banner for former Ukrainian Prime Minister and Opposition figure Yulia Tymoshchenko at Kyiv rally, Oct 26, 2012 (photo: DS)

Among the other parties not included in the “United Opposition” are eighty or so small parties, most of which did not pass the 5 percent parliamentary threshold. But two of them are worth mentioning.  (As a sidebar, a third – the Communists – would be worth mentioning as well. However, they are not part of the opposition. They will join the ruling party to help solidify its majority.)

One is UDAR, or “punch,” lead by the World Boxing Champion Vitali Klitshchko. His party drew votes based on him and him alone, and it performed surprisingly well (though not as well as some had imagined it would). Klitshchko had indicated he would never join-up with the ruling government. His position is very pro-Europe.

Ukrainian nationalist party “Svoboda” logo, reinvented in 2004. Prior to the new logo and new name, the logo resembled a swastika.

The second is Svoboda. A nationalist party, with it’s name meaning “freedom,” it has been dismissed by many, its supporters called far-right extremists. In 2004, Svoboda, which had been the National-Social Party of Ukraine, dropped the “socialist” part of its name so as to distance itself from Nazi associations. It immediately started doing better.  Its leader, Oleh Tyahnbyok, dimisses as name-calling accusations that Svoboda is an extremist party. In 2011, he told a Ukrainian newspaper:

In reality, countries like modern Japan and Israel are fully nationalistic states, but nobody accuses the Japanese of being extremists.

And its difficult to suggest that all of Svoboda’s supporters are extremists, either. As of 1530 GMT on Monday, the results – with 61 percent of the polls counted – showed that Svodoba was the smallest of the parties to make it into the parliament, with 9 percent of the vote. The Party of Regions secured 34 percent, the United Opposition had 23 percent, UDAR came in third with 15 percent, and the Communists followed with 13 percent. (You can view the latest results in Russian by clicking here.)

World boxing champion Vitali Klitskchko addresses supporters at rally in Kyiv, Ukraine, Oct 25, 2012 (photo: DS)

Suggestions of Svoboda’s future strength in parliament, based on these figures, are premature. Tyahnybok has been accused in the past of inciting anti-Semitism. But his party’s newfound success in, in all likeliness, has more to do with a growing number of people who a disillusioned by mainstream politics and politicians and disappointed by a sluggish economy, than it does with people harboring genuine anti-Semitic feelings. The numbers suggest a growing resentment of the political establishment and status quo, more than they show a rise in extremist ideology.

And even at 9 percent, Svoboda is unlikely to make much of a dent in a system that purports the ruling party. In order to understand why I say that, one needs to understand the parliament’s structure. The above percentages (which will change slightly once more voters are counted in the sparsely populated Western part of the country) account for only half of the Rada (Ukrainian parliament). The other half – 225 seats – are determined in first-past-the-post races in 225 single-mandate districts. Assuming Svoboda stays at 9 percent, it won’t necessarily get 9 percent of the seats in the parliament. Instead, it’ll get 9 percent of half of the seats in the parliament.

The reason Ukraine’s new parliament will be interesting to watch is because those single-mandate deputies can switch their support at any time. They have no specific party allegiance. Most are businessman who are popular in a specific district, and have something to gain – often, personally gain – by cozying up to the ruling party. For now, that means they will likely side on most issues with the Party of Regions. But if, in the near future, Tymoshchenko is released from prison (the European Court of Human Rights is reviewing her case and its decision could force the government to free), her re-entrance into parliament could signal her strong chances of becoming president in 2015, and those single-mandate deputies will find themselves switching alliances.

The system of Ukraine’s parliament, perhaps rather undemocratically, strengthens the larger parties at the expense of the smaller ones. So Svoboda’s influence will not be a large – or as linear – as some are suggesting.

For more on the voting and the results, watch below.

KIEV, UKRAINE – The ruling “Party of Regions” is likely to keep its majority, thanks to a revised election system that will allow single-mandate district winners to caucus with the party-in-power. The means that even though opposition groups, including the United Opposition (lead by the jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshchenko) and UDAR (led for the world boxing champion Vitali Klitshchko) will likely do better in the proportional representation part of the race, which accounts for half of the 450 seats in the Rada (parliament), the ruling party will likely stay in power thanks to its ability to lure the first-past-the-post winners to join them.

Banner for former Ukrainian Prime Minister and Opposition figure Yulia Tymoshchenko at Kyiv rally, Oct 26, 2012 (photo: DS)

The vote is less about issues and more about one individual: Tymoshchenko. The government has made an example of her, the opposition has made a martyr of her.

The European Union is closely watching the vote, which the High Commissioner Baroness Catherine Ashton has dubbed a “litmus” test for democracy in Ukraine.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov speaking at Party of Regions rally in Kyiv, Oct 26, 2012 (photo: DS)

More than 3,500 international election observers are on hand, from the CIS (former Soviet countries) and the West, including the United States, Canada, and Israel. As of Sunday morning, there were already complaints of buying votes near some polling stations, to which the police responded.

Party of Regions rally in Kyiv, Oct 26, 2012 (photo: DS)

The results are not likely change the face of Ukraine’s leadership. Though if the opposition does well, particularly Tymoshchenko’s party, it could give them momentum for the more critical vote in the presidential race in 2015. Tymoshchenko is still in jail, having just completed her first of seven-years jail sentence over a gas deal signed with Russia. That deal saw Ukraine buying the most expensive natural gas in Europe, at an annual government subsidy of nearly five million dollars. Still, European leaders have expressed their concerns that Tymoshchenko is being selectively persecuted by the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukoych, who they fear has pressured the courts. Her case is currently under review by the European Court of Human Rights, which could force Kiev’s hand in releasing her.

WATCH: Ukrainian voters prepare to vote

Puerta del Sol is a popular Madrid plaza, filled with shops, cafes and, on Thursday, thousands of demonstrators from all across the capital region. A march that began less than one kilometer away ended steps away from the Spanish Congress. (Police barricaded  Carrera de San Jeronimo, the street that runs right in front of the Congress and leads up to Puerta del Sol.) For the past several days, legislators have been signing into law a series of reforms aimed at reducing the country’s budget deficit from the current 8.9 percent to below three percent by 2014, putting it in line with EU regulations.

Spanish demonstrators offer doomsday predictions as government pushes through austerity reforms, Madrid, July 19, 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

Mariano Rajoy, the Conservative prime minister, is doing everything he can to ensure that Spain does not fall prey to an all-out Greece-style bailout.

At the square where the march ended, union leaders who were among the organizers of the mass demonstrations gave speeches stating their opposition to Rajoy’s measures, which have included a series of tax hikes and budget cuts.  Nuria Alberto is one of the rally co-organizers:

We are indignant. All of Spain has taken to the streets, in all its colors. We are protesting because of this situation which is becoming unsustainable and bringing the country to ruin.

Rajoy’s finance minister, Cristobal Montoro, testified on Wednesday and Thursday before the House of Deputies (the lower congressional chamber), stating that Spain has no choice but to push through the government’s austerity plans, and he insisted public sectors workers know that there is no money in the state coffers to pay them.

Ironcally, Rajoy’s government was brought into office some seven months ago, ousting the previous Socialist government of Jose Luis Zapatero. In his bid to get elected, Rajoy insisted there would not be an increase in taxes under his leadership. But that clearly has not been the case. Even from day one, when Rajoy began trying to balance Spain’s books, he increased income taxes. Now come Rajoy’s latest measures.

Rajoy knows he has to slash 65 billions euros from the government’s budget. He and his cabinet have gone through public expenditures like an a la carte menu and started trimming, introducing the harshest reforms Spain has seen in its thirty years of democratic rule.  They include what appear to be a number of attacks on supporters of opposition political parties, the working class, and the unions that represent them. Those measures included, for example, a reduction in the number of annual days of leave that public sector workers enjoy, a reduction in some twenty percent in funding for unions and political parties.  But perhaps the harshest reduction being felt by the working class here is three percent increase in the VAT, from 18 percent to 21 percent (effectively a tax on purchases goods and services), and the elimination of their so-called “Christmas bonuses” (which effectively amounts to a 7.1% pay cut).

For the first time, policemen and firemen were among the civil servants who took part en masse in the demonstrations. Antonio, a fireman, say he does not mind taking a cut in his salary to help the poor, but not to help the politicians. He notes that Spain has twice as many politicians as Germany, a country with twice the population. Indeed, much of Spain’s public “fat” lies in its complicated and obese system staggered governance, spread-out over 17 regions and numerous towns. Even at the national level, Spain’s Senate, the upper house, has 230 seats, more than twice the United States, a country with a population that is six times larger. Essentially, people like Antonio, the fireman, say Spain needs less public sector workers at the top, not at bottom.

The government denies that it is disproportionately targeting the the country’s most vulnerable.  Arturo Fernandez, the president of Madrid’s regional business association, said companies and corporations are also paying a price, but that they are the ones that will save Spain.

Here there is no alternative but to tighten our belt. We have nothing else we can do.  We, the businessmen, understand this. But the people don’t, and they express it by going out on the streets and demonstrating.

It is worth noting that the Royal Family, dealing with its own public relations crisis, announced that its salary would also be cut by the same amount in solidarity with the people. But it might be of little comfort to Spanish citizens who are now scrambling to figure out how to buy Christmas gifts for their children this winter without the bonuses they had gotten so used to.