+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The day Europe got Israel’s attention

Responding to the EU’s decision to limit all joint projects at the Green Line, Prime Minister Netanyahu displayed a confrontational attitude, vowing not to let anyone ‘harm’ the settlers.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Called the EU to deal with Syria and Iran, rather than Israel  (Photo: Kobi Gideon / GPO)


UPDATE: This post has been updated with clarifications from an EU source regarding the nature of the new guidelines. Read the full guidelines here

The European Union’s decision to limit all joint projects with Israel beyond the pre-1967 borders accomplished what all of President Obama’s speeches and Secretary of State Kerry’s diplomatic missions have failed to – it put the occupation back as the top story on the Israeli agenda.

The new European guidelines – UPDATE: the exact term is Commission Notice – which were revealed by Haaretz’s Barak Ravid this morning, will demand that any agreement with an Israeli institution include an article limiting activities beyond the pre-1967 borders. The guidelines allow European involvement with Israeli institutions which are based beyond the Green Line – as the Justice Department is, for example – as long as the joint activity doesn’t take place in occupied territory. In accordance with the international community’s longstanding position, the guidelines don’t recognize the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the surrounding territories, or the Golan Heights.

The non-binding guidelines were delivered to all 28 EU member states on June 30 and they are due to come into effect this Friday in 2014.

UPDATE: The Commission Notice doesn’t mention agreements but rather applies to “EU grants, prizes and programs”. Ariel University, for example, cannot benefit from a European grant, but if a member-state chose to fund it, it can go on doing so. 

Unlike previous warnings and condemnations of settlement construction, which Israelis seem to have gotten used to, this step caught the Israeli public, media and government by surprise (at least part of the reason is that the Foreign Ministry is on strike and the foreign minister position is vacant pending the conclusion of Avigdor Liberman’s trial). All media outlets were quick to post follow-ups to Haaretz‘s story this morning. UPDATE: According to a European source, Israel was informed of the process during all its stages. 

Knesset members and government ministers have been issuing uncoordinated statements throughout the day. Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin, himself a settler, called the decision “unfortunate;” Housing Minister Uri Ariel of the Jewish Home party was much more blunt, calling the decision “racist” and saying that it “resembles boycotts against Jews in Europe 66 years ago.”

Finance Minister Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid party also slammed the European move. “This is a miserable directive, poorly timed, and it sabotages efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry to bring the two parties to the negotiating table,’’ said Lapid, whose position on the Palestinian issue is similar to the Likud’s. “The EU directive signals to the Palestinians that there is no international or economic price to be paid for their continuing refusal to return to talks, and causes them to believe that Israel will be forced to capitulate to economic and diplomatic pressure.”

No politician who wants to become prime minister can endorse a decision against Israeli policies, but Lapid’s comments were surprisingly hostile toward the Palestinians and the EU. It could suggest that his political pact with settler leader Naftali Bennet is still holding firm.

Last to comment was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who held an emergency meeting with Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Bennett to discuss the European guidelines. The unsurprising decision the forum reached was to try and cancel the EU’s guidelines. In a public statement that followed the meeting, Netanyahu displayed a very confrontational attitude:

I will not allow the hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the Golan Heights and Jerusalem to be harmed. We will not follow any demands regarding our borders. These issues will be resolved only through direct negotiations.

I would expect those who wish to see peace and stability to deal with this topic only after dealing with a number of more pressing regional issues, like the Syrian civil war or the Iranian race towards nuclear weapon.

Clearly, Netanyahu’s statements were directed more at the conservative public at home than the international community. Still, his aggressive style is telling. Proxies for the prime minister have been claiming for several years that Netanyahu has undergone a genuine change and that he is truly willing to leave his mark in history in the form of a peace agreement. Yet whenever the opportunity presents itself, Netanyahu presents positions that are to the right of the Israeli consensus.

The prime minister could have used the outside pressure to prepare the Israeli public for concessions or at least to win some ground in his political battle with the settler bloc in his government. Instead, he is reciting talking points written for campus activists. Even if he wanted to get the Europeans to change their policies, it doesn’t seem like he is willing to offer them anything in return. Just as it was with the recent decision to appoint Ron Dermer – known for his opposition to the two-state solution – as his envoy to Washington, it seems that there is no new Netanyahu – just the old Netanyahu, older.

It remains to be seen what effect the European decision will actually have on the ground. A lot depends, as always, on European bureaucracy and the individual member states that will need to implement this decision. Every state agency and institution in Israel takes part in the occupation and in the settlement project, so deciding where “legitimate” cooperation ends and the occupation begins is a complicated, if not impossible, act. The guidelines, because of their non-binding nature, could remain as a relatively declarative or symbolic act. But even as such, it will be different from most of those moves that preceded it in one central aspect – it got the Israelis’ attention.

What’s in the new EU guidelines regarding activities beyond the Green Line?
Can the EU’s settlement exclusion push the U.S. to follow suit?

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Said EL-Said

      sounds nice, half assed measured by EU. key word UNBINDING to member states

      Reply to Comment
      • ToivoS

        That is not a significant problem, these types of resolutions are never binding on member states. What it does is give a strong signal to the member states that they can do something. Some may go beyond the suggestion and others that seek close relations with the US like UK, Poland and the Czechs, will probably ignore it entirely.

        Noam is right, this is highly significant.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Robby Martin

      This is long overdue but a welcome change from the non stop “condemnations” of Israel’s illegal settlement policys by the EU. Neither Israel or the US are interested in peace or self determination for the Palestinians. If the US was serious about acheiving a resolution to the conflict they could have resolved it years ago by cancelling the “Aid” it gives to Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    3. sh

      The guidelines were drawn up according to a decision by European Union Foreign Ministers so I think they do carry weight. Also, it’s possible that Kerry and Obama were less surprised than Netanyahu.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Jonny

      My view is that the US is allowing the EU to carry the stick. If the US didn’t want this to happen it wouldn’t have been announced. By-passes the power of the US lobby and creates the impression of pressure (but I don’t think it will have any real impact). Good point by Noam about Netanyahu’s position – does anyone have any doubts about his true intentions?

      Reply to Comment
    5. aristeides

      Netanyahu busy twisting EU arms to “postpone” sanctions, at the same time Israel is approving more settlement construction in the WB.

      Way to be sincere!

      Reply to Comment

      ICJ, Shoah, Pogroms, Ghettoes, Inquisitions… really, the excitement never ends!

      Other than the title — and the last few paragraphs putting down Bibi and conciliating to those, who hate Jews and Israel, it was a good article, which at least did clarify important aspects of the horrendous decree of the EU.

      On Pesach it is the Wise Son, who asks, “What does the Law actually say?” In this respect the article was wise. As to the opinions expressed by the article, they belong on an editorial page as an opinion piece, not in the title and not in an article.

      Reply to Comment
      • Aharon – this is a news blog, I am adding my opinion and analysis to the reports. I am sure smart readers won’t find it a problem to separate the two.

        Reply to Comment