Scratch just a bit under the hope generated by the coming electoral changes in Washington, Jerusalem, and maybe Ramallah, and you discover deep despair about the possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
The roads taken in the last 15 years in pursuit of a deal – the negotiations since Oslo, the unilateralism of the Gaza disengagement, and even the violence since the (second) Intifada – all failed.
The opponents of an agreement did not waste that time, however: The number of Israeli settlers grew almost threefold since the early days of the peace process, making a territorial compromise even more difficult.
Political leadership on both sides offers little hope for reconciliation. The Palestinian national movement is weak and deeply divided. The coming Israeli elections will most likely bring about a more hawkish Israeli Parliament, if not a more conservative prime minister.
A sense of hopelessness has reached even the most committed peace activists. The Palestinian activist Sari Nusseibeh, for example, wondered publicly if territorial compromise is still an option. And Israel's Yossi Beilin recently announced that he will retire from politics altogether.
Israelis and Palestinians need a new vision. They need a vision that will include a powerful incentive not only to get the train of negotiations back on track, but will also outline a final destination for its journey. With the lessons of the failed Oslo process before us, it is clear now that a future peace agreement needs to respond to the deepest grievances and darkest fears of both sides.
To find a path forward, we need to go back to the origins of it all. It was Europe's violent rejection of Jews in the past that begat modern Zionism and paradoxically contributed to its success. Once the problem, Europe may now be the solution. To both encourage and reward a territorial and security agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, it should offer a clear path for their membership in the European Union.
It could help the parties fashion a settlement. The prospect of joining the richest union of states on earth is an enormous incentive for reaching a deal. The union's organization and values offer the frame for a peace agreement.
In fact, the dual identity of a supranational entity comprised of peaceful national states holds the answer for both sides' most profound concerns. For Israelis, EU membership offers physical security and permanent legitimacy. For Palestinians, membership means a territorial settlement, including a return, of sorts, of their lands through the new joint European source of security and authority over them.
Such an arrangement also holds significant benefits for Europe. It would contribute to political stability on its eastern and southern flank. If successful, it might even open a path for EU members to certain North African states, thus limiting the frustrations of millions of would-be immigrants to leave their instable region and go to Europe.
If European capital moves to areas of abundant nearby labor, labor has less reason to migrate to areas of capital abundance. Perhaps more important, it will expand the geographical borders of Europe, as well as the confines of its current identity, in a manner that will make the conversation with Turkey far easier.
Of course, there will be challenges. Israelis are haunted by the potential flood of Palestinian refugees from the open borders that Europe espouses (though the Schengen agreement has been applied differentially). Palestinians are still angered by the result of European colonialism, and Europeans may not want to proceed beyond admitting the nearby Island of Cyprus. Europe might be hesitate to broker such a deal, but the possibility of their succeeding with a Palestinian settlement, which had eluded the US for 40 years, would be a strong incentive to proceed. All these are weighty issues, but solvable ones.
The possibility of a day in which the descendants of the ancient foes – Christendom, Islamic civilization and Judaism – come together to resolve the century-long conflict over the Holy Land, finally acknowledging their common ancestor, Abraham, is not far afield. By using entrance to the European Union as an incentive for peace, Europe would not only free the region from a seriously destabilizing quarrel, but may also finally put to rest a millennia-long rivalry.
Richard N. Rosecrance is a professor at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center and was a member of the policy Planning Council at the Department of State. Ehud Eiran is a research fellow at the Belfer Center and served in the prime minister's office in Israel.
This article was first published here and has been republished with kind permission from the authors.
Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:
- Heinrich Maetzke: Thank You, Mr. President
- Oreste Foppiani: Italy's New Role as a Major Transatlantic Partner
- Leonie Holthaus: EU and Arab Gulf States: Untapped Cooperation Opportunities
- 2
December 27, 2008
Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)
Fortunately, the European Union is a success model of building shared identity on the basis of common roots, which enabled us to overcome the distrust and hatred of the past. But it seems that Israelis and Americans sometimes overlook how unstable the situation in Europe still is. Due to the fast growth of the union, it is politically nearly paralyzed. Only after the adoption of the European constitution it will be possible to move further ahead. As well, it seems still open whether Turkey will join the union or not. At this point, the EU is leaving the common ground of joint identity which is unanimously shared by the majority of its members. Is our concept of Europe oriented according to the geographic borders of the continent, or the legacy of the Roman empire, or according to religions, or ethnics, or what?
These basic questions are very important, because only if we understand who we are (which is definded by individual and collective memories), we can outline concepts of who we want to be. Europe's recent success is probably to a large extent due to the cultural and historical connections of Germanic tribes inheriting the Roman empire, and the terrible experiences of WW II. But this reached its limits now in Turkey, which had a long European history, but whose language, religion, and culture stems from a different realm which incorporated the area not very long ago.
The situation in Israel and Palestine is completely confused. The Jewish state is based on two visions: on the one hand it shall be a tolerant, enlightened, and progressive country, which brings development and offers safety for Jews from further persecutions. On the other hand, it focuses on events which happened 3000 years ago, connected with some utterly backward attitudes and discussions of who has the "oldest rights". Curiously, these backward attitudes co-exist with the enligthened vision, which is why some people assume that Israel's inner unity will end as soon as the outer pressure is removed.
The Ashkenasin (coming from Europe, probably with partial roots in a Khazar empire on the Krim, which converted to Judaism during the Early Middle Ages) and Sephardim (coming from the Orient) are already quite different, not to speak about the Ethiopian and Russian Jews who migrated recently in large numbers. Israel is the only country where religion defines nationality and the right of immigration. Can this fit into Europe?
In contrast, the Palestinians are a new "invention" of artificial colonial borders, and consist of various groups. Arabs are the vast majority, but "Arab" is a very unclear concept as well. Islam is the probably the strongest common identity, but tribal identities were never replaced. Many Palestinians see Israel as a revival of the crusader state, although with different religion. It is very unlikely that the incorporation of this area into the European Union will facilitate dialogue with Islam.
Israel's two key problems, in my opinion, is firstly that Islam (the overwhelming majority of Muslims today) never abdicated this country, especially as it hosts one of its most holy sites. Claiming the "older" rights from Moses does not help, since Muslims hold that Muhammad was the last prophet. However, I think a religious "solution" which leaves the area under Jewish control might be possible, since Islam recognises Jews as "people of the book".
The second problem, which is the opposition of an Arab majority to a state which was mainly the creation of European immigrants, is ethnic and might be more difficult to solve. I think some valuable lessons can be learnt from the crusaders. I learned in history that they became weak because they adopted Arab styles of living, married Arab women, and neglected fighting. But today I think that they might have been accepted if there hadn't been a steady influx of religious radicals from Europe, who even did not respect the peace agreements of their own king.
Today, South Africa might resemble the situation in Israel and Palestine quite well, and might give an example for a way out if people of strong character take the lead. I personally believe that there is a real chance for peace, and there are many very comitted people on both sides, but unfortunately the current tensions in the region kept radical groups too strong.
Due to the massive construction of settlements in the West Bank since the 70ties, and perhaps also due to the natural resources and geography, Israel is in a dead end road since it is virtually impossible to go back to a "real" two-states solution. The only Palestine which is still possible is a mere autonomy of some areas, but which are completely dependent on Israel, and which can also not effectively be controlled from a point of security. The South African alternative, one state with same rights for all, would however collide with the foundation ideas of Israel, and Jews would soon be a minority.
I think therefore that Israel's long-term perspective is entering the Arab league. Jews are historically much more part of the Muslim and Arab world than of Europe (and still there are Jews e.g. in Damascus, although much reduced in number), and a Jewish state might be accepted by the Palestinians, if they can feel at home there. For example, most Israeli Arabs (those conquered in 1948) do not want to leave Israel, and the recently discussed proposal to cut the areas with Israeli Arab majority and join them with a Palestinian state met strong opposition there. Nevertheless they feel as second-class citizen and are not happy with their situation.
The US and Europe can and have to help Israelis e.g. by providing military gurantees. This is certainly the duty from the historic crimes which were comitted against Jews. However, even if Jews and Palestinians like to see themselves as Europeans, I fear that this view is not completely in agreement with reality. Are Jews European because the majority of Ashkenasin migrated from there? Even if so, the great majority of the inhabitants (and legacies, except the crusaders) of the area is Oriental, not European.
On the long run, Jews and Palestinians have to find out what it shall mean to be Israeli. They have to create a common legacy which will enable them to outline a vision of the future. Israel could play a very positive role in the Arab world, become a catalysator of progress, and might help to transform the Arab league according to the success model of the European Union. The Arabs have so much to win from Israel, that future generations migh wonder how their fathers could ever be opposed in such a deep conflict.
The immediate neighbours of this country are Oriental Arab states, not Europe. The Arab states have intense ties to the area. These old roots and complex connections must not be ignored.