Europe: The Cowardly Giant

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Europe recently adopted a decision on Jerusalem stating that the city would be the capital of two states through the negotiating process between Palestinians and Israelis. The European Union’s member states did not endorse the Swedish proposal, which had called for explicit and unambiguous European recognition of so-called East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state whose establishment is being called for at the international level. In the end they settled on a decision that amounts to little more than a rehashing of earlier, quasi-collective European positions. Over the long years since 1967, most European states have declared their support for the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, or have at least considered East Jerusalem an occupied area whose features and status Israel may not tamper with.

This European decision is perfectly proportionate to the international stature Europe fashions for itself — a stature far smaller than its true economic, military, cultural, and social capacities. The European Union is an enormous bloc, an economic and military giant possessing formidable means to exert real influence on the international stage, yet it has still not begun to act in keeping with this gigantic scale, and continues to handle the world’s various issues with the caution of a coward. The coward’s caution is to approach matters timidly and fearfully, with a hesitant step that in the end recoils into inaction; it is quite different from the courageous man’s caution, which means proceeding steadily while remaining watchful. The European Union as a whole calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state; several of its core states have called for the establishment of a Palestinian state; and a number of other states have condemned settlement activity in the past and continue to condemn it, and have long called for East Jerusalem not to be tampered with, considering it an occupied city under international law.

The Face of Cowardice in the European Decision

The EU’s decision states that Jerusalem is the capital of two states without giving any clear specification of what that means: did it mean precisely East Jerusalem as occupied in 1967, without the settlements, or did it leave the door open for negotiating the settlements’ continued existence? Must the settlements be removed, or is it possible to negotiate geographic or administrative adjustments to resolve the settlement question outside international law? And is the decision in favor of Jerusalem’s political division, or does it merely open the door to administrative division while Jerusalem remains a single city? The true face of cowardice is that the decision introduced negotiation as an essential element for cementing the idea of the city as the capital of two states — which diminishes the decision’s value as a matter of principle in favor of a contingent value tied to negotiations. It is quite possible that negotiations will produce a solution that does not fully match the two-state idea, and this is a real possibility because the Palestinian side has not, throughout the negotiating process, held fast to international resolutions, preferring instead to reach solutions through negotiation outside the text of those resolutions. For example, the Palestinian side left the question of Palestinian refugees to permanent-status negotiations, even though General Assembly Resolution 194 demands that Israel immediately facilitate the refugees’ return. The same happened with the right of self-determination, which the Oslo Accord never even mentioned.

It is clear that the European Union searched for an amendment to the Swedish initiative so as not to anger Israel, or to anger it only gently, if it were to be angered at all. This is what we could sense from the Israeli government’s own reaction, which said the European decision brought nothing new, despite angry responses from some Israeli politicians. In truth, it was never to be expected that the Europeans would adopt a firm decision they would then stand behind — their record on the Palestinian question, and on other global issues, proves as much.

The Europeans Established Israel

It was Europe that established Israel, paving the way by facilitating Jewish immigration to Palestine and facilitating the transfer of land into Jewish hands, both before and after the founding of the World Zionist Organization. The ambassadors of numerous European states worked to pressure the Sublime Porte in Constantinople, and their consuls in Jerusalem worked to increase the numbers of Jewish immigrants to Palestine, and they worked to purchase land under the land-transfer laws the Ottoman state enacted as a result of that pressure. It was the Europeans who divided up Greater Syria and Mesopotamia according to their own will and against the interests of the Arab people of the region, and who set Palestine aside to fall under the British Mandate pursuant to the Mandate instrument of 1922.

Britain then went on to wreak corruption across the land and hand the Zionists mastery over it. France, for its part, expelled King Faisal from Damascus and put an end to the Syrian kingdom that had encompassed the whole of Greater Syria. The Europeans empowered Israel over the Arabs: they supported it in the 1948 war, supplied it with large quantities of arms, and asked it to take part in the Suez war. It was Europe, France above all, that supplied Israel with its nuclear reactor, that orchestrated the theft of heavy water and the theft of missile boats, and that supplied it with the advanced weaponry used to strike Arab armies in 1967. Europe’s record against the Arabs and Palestinians is a long one, and only the naïve would think that Europe will suddenly turn against itself and stand against Israel.

Europe’s Palestinian State

The Europeans support the establishment of a Palestinian state, but no one has yet defined this state for us. In their latest decision, the Europeans said they favor a contiguous and “viable” Palestinian state, but they did not say they favor the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state whose people enjoy the right of self-determination. It is understandable that the Europeans do not favor a state carved into disconnected fragments by Zionist barriers and checkpoints, but the notion of being “viable” is not understood — it is an invention with no basis whatsoever in international law. Viability remains undefined to this day, and it is certainly not equivalent to the idea of sovereignty.

[illegible fragment in original document]

[illegible fragment in original document]

[illegible fragment in original document]

[illegible fragment in original document]

[illegible fragment in original document]

[illegible fragment in original document]

[illegible fragment in original document]

…in international law. “Viability” remains undefined — a notion left open to endless interpretation, and it is entirely possible that in practice it will never rise to the level of independence. It might mean, for instance, that other states undertake to finance this state for as long as it abides by certain conditions — meaning that independence would be conditional on carrying out the will of others, not the will of the state itself. Or the borders with Jordan and Egypt might be opened on condition that Europeans oversee the movement of traffic according to Israeli conditions. Or educational curricula might be placed under others’ control to ensure reassurance that this state is raising its children according to principles and orientations that others approve of, and so on.

Perhaps the notion of viability is confined to the question of subsistence rather than the question of life itself. It is possible that some of them see eating, drinking, and getting around as constituting life, and do not regard matters of dignity, the unity of the Palestinian people, and religious pride as important vital concerns. Such thinking treats Palestinians as well-mannered or well-trained animals, content with whatever material comforts are handed to them, without any respect for moral and civilizational concerns.

My assessment is that the Europeans, together with the Americans, are promoting a Palestinian entity that functions as a security subcontractor for Israel, subject to a great many security, educational, and economic standards that guarantee it remains dependent on others — a moral affliction serving the enemy — while being supplied with just enough money and food to keep it within the bounds of acute poverty, that is, never reaching a level of comfort at which people might begin to think in terms of self-respect. This explains the reluctance of Western countries in general, and of Israel, to give any clear definition of the Palestinian state they speak of.

Words Without Deeds

European governments have said many things in favor of the Palestinians, and criticized Israeli policies, but they have not yet dared to take any action against Israel beyond one very feeble measure: boycotting goods and produce manufactured in the Zionist settlements of the West Bank. And it is not even certain the Europeans have managed to carry out this boycott effectively, since it is easy enough to change the label on a Zionist product and claim it was made inside Israel proper. There have been popular initiatives, such as the academic boycott of Zionist academics or Zionist universities, but this has remained a popular decision that never rose to the official level.

If Europe is serious in its positions in favor of the Palestinians, or against Israeli measures in Jerusalem and across the West Bank, then it must take practical action. Time has proven that verbal positions and official messages accomplish nothing with Israel, which is precisely why escalating, concrete measures against Israel are required. Israel rests assured that European positions are merely theoretical, that they may not even command consensus, and that European leaders lack the courage needed to translate their words into actions that would compel Israel’s compliance. For this reason, one cannot rely on the Europeans to search for a solution to the Palestinian question.

The Europeans serve one single practical purpose: paying the bills that result from Israel’s destruction of Palestinian facilities, and paying the Palestinians the price of their own concessions. The Europeans are the second-largest donor to the Palestinians, after the Arabs, for repairing the destruction Israel inflicts through its ongoing aggression against the Palestinian people, and they are the ones who provide the funds mandated under agreements with Israel to support the Palestinian Authority and enable it to pay its employees’ salaries. This arrangement meets with American and Israeli encouragement to such a degree that Israeli officials themselves call on Europe to support the Palestinian Authority whenever they sense it is passing through financial hardship — provided, of course, that Hamas is not the one in charge.

The Europeans submitted to Israel’s will after Hamas won the elections, and decided to impose a financial boycott on the Authority’s government, joining in the siege imposed on the people of Palestine. The Europeans thereby contradicted every democratic principle they claim to promote, and chose to act against the will of the Palestinian people. This alone proves that the Europeans do not favor establishing a Palestinian state that expresses the people’s will, but rather a state that expresses the will of others — which can never be a genuine state.

It is noticeable that the European campaign against Israeli policies in the West Bank intensifies whenever American criticism of those policies intensifies. The European campaign against settlement activity, for instance, grew louder when Obama spoke out against settlements, and quieted down when Obama’s own voice quieted. There are strong indications, across a number of areas, that the Europeans have not yet reached a degree of independent maturity, and remain under the weight of Israel and the United States. Gaza is a glaring example of this. Despite the outcry of many world and European figures over the dire conditions in Gaza, Europe continues to contribute to the prolonging of the people’s suffering there in order to pressure Hamas. It is thereby contributing to a terrorist act, by the West’s own definition, which holds that terrorism is the use of force against civilians to achieve political ends.

The Flaw Lies in the Weak

Whoever searches for the causes of his troubles outside himself is doomed to disappointment. A person may well seek the help of friends, and may well need some assistance, but only after he has readied himself and made full use of his own capacities, resources, and energies — that is, only after he has searched within himself for the sources of his own strength and worked to build them up. Only then might he find someone to help him, and only then might his prayer be answered. But the resigned soul who sees in himself nothing but weakness and dependence on others remains a burden on himself and on others alike; he may receive some charity, and he may not. This is itself an affliction — a person who cannot conceive of any future or identity for himself except through others, forever weeping and wailing to draw out others’ pity.

The Europeans and the Americans are only strong for as long as hands remain outstretched toward them, begging for aid. This is why the Europeans see in their latest decision something so momentous — through the welcome the Palestinian Authority and some Arab regimes extended to it. A feeble man receiving glory from someone even more feeble — and the truth remains more forceful than the media coverage: Arabs begging, Europeans unable to deliver, and so both sides content themselves with flour and aspirin as compensation for the right of self-determination.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “أوروبا: العملاق الجبان” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.