EPS-004 - European Position Statement - Greater-Israel Zionism

 

EPS-004 - European Position Statement - Greater-Israel Zionism

A Proposed European Position Statement

Scope of this Position Statement

EPS-001 evaluated an actor: Iran.

EPS-002 evaluated a policy: Israeli settlement expansion.

EPS-003 evaluated a strategy: Hamas armed resistance.

EPS-004 evaluates an ideology and political project: Greater-Israel Zionism.

That distinction matters.

This statement does not evaluate Zionism as a whole. Zionism encompasses multiple historical traditions and political interpretations. Many forms of Zionism are compatible with Israel’s existence as a legitimate, democratic and secure state.

This statement evaluates a more specific proposition:
The belief that Israel should permanently exercise sovereignty over all or most of the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River while denying equivalent national self-determination to Palestinians.

The question is therefore:

Does Greater-Israel Zionism move the region toward or away from the direction identified by the Declaration Compass?

---

European Objective

Europe seeks a Middle East in which Israelis and Palestinians can pursue security, dignity and self-determination without permanently denying those same goods to one another.

Europe recognizes Israel as a legitimate political entity with legitimate security concerns.
Europe also recognizes Palestinian self-determination as a legitimate and unresolved aspiration.

European policy should therefore support developments that preserve a viable future for both peoples.

Political projects that secure one future while leaving the other permanently unresolved move the region away from durable peace.

The Greater-Israel project raises precisely that concern.

---

Compass Assessment

Future

Greater-Israel Zionism provides a clear future for Israeli Jews.

It does not provide an equally clear future for Palestinians. Supporters propose various arrangements ranging from autonomy to limited self-governance.
However, these proposals generally stop short of equivalent national self-determination.

The result is an asymmetrical political future. One national project is fully realized.
The other remains conditional, constrained or indefinitely postponed.

The Declaration Compass suggests that durable peace requires a future that can ultimately be inhabited by both peoples.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Greater-Israel Zionism provides an incomplete future because it leaves Palestinian national aspirations fundamentally unresolved.

---

Security

Supporters of Greater-Israel Zionism frequently emphasize security. Given Israel’s history, these concerns cannot be dismissed.
Any realistic regional order must provide Israelis with security and protection from violence.

The Declaration Compass nevertheless asks a broader question:
Can security ultimately become reciprocal?

Greater-Israel Zionism tends to frame security primarily in terms of Israeli control.
It provides less clarity regarding how Palestinians might ultimately experience security within the same framework.

The result is a model that may strengthen security for one side while leaving the other unconvinced that its own security concerns will ever be fully addressed.

Compass Assessment: Mixed to Negative.

The project may strengthen Israeli security in the short term while weakening prospects for reciprocal security in the long term.

---

Reconciliation

The conflict is sustained not only by territory but also by history.

Both Israelis and Palestinians carry powerful historical narratives shaped by trauma, fear, displacement and loss.

Greater-Israel Zionism offers a strong narrative of Jewish continuity, belonging and historical attachment to the land.
What it offers less clearly is a corresponding path through which Palestinian historical grievances can be acknowledged and incorporated into a shared future.

The Declaration Compass views reconciliation not as forgetting history but as transforming history into coexistence.

Political projects that emphasize one historical narrative while leaving another unresolved face difficulty meeting this objective.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Greater-Israel Zionism provides limited space for reconciliation because it leaves Palestinian historical grievances largely unresolved.

---

European Position Statement

Europe should distinguish clearly between support for Israel and support for the Greater-Israel project.

Support for Israel’s legitimacy, security and continued existence does not require support for political projects that permanently deny equivalent national aspirations to Palestinians.

Europe should therefore oppose efforts to institutionalize permanent asymmetry between Israeli and Palestinian futures.

Its argument should not be only legal. It should also be strategic.

Greater-Israel Zionism does not merely complicate negotiations.
It moves the region away from the direction required for durable peace.
It narrows the possibility of a future for both peoples.
It weakens prospects for reciprocal security.
It makes reconciliation more difficult.

Europe should therefore continue supporting initiatives that preserve political space for both Israeli and Palestinian self-determination while opposing developments that seek to make asymmetry permanent.

---

Compass Conclusion

The Compass assessment does not constitute a rejection of Israel.
Nor does it constitute a rejection of Jewish self-determination.

It is an assessment of a specific ideological and political project.

The Declaration Compass suggests that Greater-Israel Zionism moves the region away from the direction required for durable peace. Because durable peace requires a framework in which both Israeli and Palestinian futures can develop together.

The unfinished challenge [1] identified by the Declaration remains the same.
The issue is not whether one people should have a future.
The issue is whether both peoples can ultimately share one regional order based on future, security and reconciliation.

---

Reference

[1] The Road Not Taken in 1948
Completing What Was Left Unfinished
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/the-road-not-taken-in-1948.html

 

A European Civil Power Initiative for the Middle East

Making Political Empowerment More Powerful Than Armed Resistance

The previous articles in this series arrived at a simple conclusion.

• Europe needs its own Middle East strategy.
• That strategy requires principles.
• It requires a vision.
• And it requires a practical role.

The proposed European Declaration for Middle East Stability argued that:
Peace becomes possible when enough people feel that their history has been seen, acknowledged and incorporated into a shared future.

The resulting Compass identified three guiding principles:

• Future
• Security
• Reconciliation

Applying those principles revealed a recurring pattern.

• Settlement expansion weakens the future.
• Armed resistance weakens security.
• Permanent grievance politics weakens reconciliation.

Yet another conclusion emerged as well.
The problem is not simply that destructive strategies exist.
The problem is that too many people see no credible alternative.

---

A Different Starting Point

Much of today’s diplomacy focuses on reducing violence.
That is necessary. But it is not sufficient.
Violence rarely disappears because people are persuaded to abandon it.
Violence declines when better alternatives become available.

This observation suggests a different objective.
Europe should not merely ask actors to abandon violence.
Europe should help create alternatives that are more powerful than violence.

The purpose of a European Civil Power Initiative would therefore be simple:
To make political empowerment more powerful than armed resistance.

---

Europe’s Unique Position

Europe cannot solve the Middle East conflict.
The peoples and states of the region must ultimately determine their own future.
But Europe may be uniquely positioned to help create the political conditions under which a solution becomes possible.

• Unlike the United States, Europe is not primarily viewed as a military actor.
• Unlike Iran, Europe is not invested in resistance as a regional strategy.
• Unlike Israel, Europe is not a direct combatant.
• Unlike Hamas or Hezbollah, Europe does not derive legitimacy from confrontation.

This gives Europe an unusual opportunity. Not to impose a settlement.
But to help strengthen the political, economic and diplomatic alternatives that make peaceful outcomes more attractive.

---

A Civil Power Coalition

Europe should not attempt this alone. Nor should it present itself as the architect of a Middle Eastern future.
Instead, Europe should invite the formation of a Civil Power Coalition.
A coalition of the willing. A coalition not defined by military alliances, ideology or religion.
A coalition defined by a shared commitment to making political empowerment more powerful than armed resistance.

The founding participants could include willing European states together with key regional partners such as:

• Jordan
• Egypt
• Saudi Arabia
• Qatar
• Indonesia
• Turkey

and others prepared to support the principles of Future, Security and Reconciliation.

The coalition would remain open to broader participation.
Its purpose would not be to choose sides. Its purpose would be to strengthen alternatives.

---

Four Areas of Action

The Civil Power Coalition would focus on four areas.

Political Empowerment

Political institutions must become more effective than military organizations.

Support for governance, representation, elections, administrative capacity and political participation should therefore become a central priority.

Palestinians need a credible political horizon. Political empowerment should not be viewed as a reward after peace. It should become one of the instruments through which peace is made possible.

---

Economic Empowerment

People are more likely to invest in the future when they believe a future exists.

Reconstruction, investment, trade, infrastructure and economic development should therefore be treated not only as economic tools but also as peace-building tools.

Prosperity cannot solve the conflict. But conflict becomes harder to sustain when prosperity becomes achievable.

---

Reciprocal Security

Security must not remain a zero-sum proposition.

Israelis require security. Palestinians require security. The region requires security.

The coalition should therefore support monitoring mechanisms, confidence-building measures and practical arrangements that gradually reduce dependence on military leverage.

The objective is not simply security. It is reciprocal security.

---

Reconciliation

No durable peace can emerge if history remains permanently contested.

The coalition should support initiatives that encourage acknowledgement of historical experience without demanding historical surrender.

The objective is not agreement on history. The objective is coexistence despite different memories of history.

---

A Different Logic

The initiative does not begin by asking: What final settlement should be imposed?

Instead it asks:

• How can political alternatives become stronger than military alternatives?
• How can diplomacy become more rewarding than confrontation?
• How can coexistence become more attractive than permanent conflict?

The answers may differ over time.

But the direction remains consistent: Future, Security, Reconciliation.

---

Europe’s Invitation

The purpose of the Civil Power Coalition would not be to replace existing diplomacy.

It would be to strengthen what existing diplomacy often lacks.

• A credible political road.
• A road for Palestinians beyond permanent armed resistance.
• A road for Israelis beyond permanent domination.
• A road for regional actors beyond perpetual confrontation.

Europe cannot deliver peace. But Europe can help make peace more powerful than violence.

That may be its most important contribution to the Middle East.

---

Summary - Looking Ahead

The European Declaration for Middle East Stability proposed a set of principles.

The Civil Power Initiative proposes a practical direction.

The next challenge is operational.

How can the principles of Future, Security and Reconciliation be translated into concrete positions on the major issues dividing the region today?

That remains the work ahead. But every journey begins with a first step.

The first step is building a coalition willing to make political empowerment more powerful than armed resistance. 

---

Reference

Europe's Missing Role in the Middle East
Why Europe Must Offer More Than Criticism
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/europes-missing-role-in-middle-east.html

 

 

 

Europe's Missing Role in the Middle East

 

Europe's Missing Role in the Middle East

Why Europe Must Offer More Than Criticism

Europe has become increasingly vocal about the Middle East.
European leaders criticize settlement expansion. They criticize attacks on civilians. They criticize humanitarian suffering. They criticize regional escalation.

Often these criticisms are justified. Yet criticism alone has not moved the region closer to peace. The question is why. The answer may be uncomfortable.
Europe has become increasingly clear about what it opposes. It remains far less clear about what it actively offers instead.

---

The Limits of Criticism

Consider the main actors in today’s conflict.

• Europe tells Israel that settlement expansion undermines peace.
• Europe tells Hamas that armed resistance undermines peace.
• Europe tells Hezbollah that permanent confrontation undermines peace.
• Europe tells Iran that regional escalation undermines peace.

Europe is largely correct in each case. But from the perspective of those actors, another question immediately arises:

What is the alternative?

If Palestinians abandon armed resistance, what political path becomes available?
If Israel accepts limits on territorial expansion, what security framework replaces it?
If Iran reduces support for resistance movements, who ensures that Palestinian aspirations remain visible?
If Hezbollah abandons confrontation, what guarantees prevent its constituency from feeling abandoned?

Too often, the answer appears vague.

Europe asks actors to move away from conflict but offers insufficient clarity about where they should move toward.

---

What The Declaration Revealed

The proposed European Declaration for Middle East Stability [1] was built around a simple insight:

Peace becomes possible when enough people feel that their history has been seen, acknowledged, and incorporated into a shared future.

From that insight emerged three guiding principles:

• Future
• Security
• Reconciliation

Applying these principles to the first European Position Statements [2 (Iran), 3 (Israeli Settlements), 4 (Hamas)] produced a recognizable result.

• Settlement expansion weakens the future.
• Hamas armed resistance weakens security.
• Permanent grievance politics weakens reconciliation.

And something else gained visibility. Israel’s opponents are responding, however imperfectly, to problems they believe remain unresolved [5].

The issue is not simply that destructive strategies exist.
The issue is that too many people see no credible alternative.

---

The Missing Ingredient

Current diplomacy often assumes that violence can be reduced by asking those who use it to stop.

But history suggests something different.
Violence rarely declines because people are persuaded that it is wrong.
Violence declines when more effective alternatives become available.

This principle applies far beyond the Middle East.
Democratic politics became attractive because it offered an alternative to civil conflict.
European integration became attractive because it offered an alternative to continental rivalry.

The same logic applies here.

Europe should not ask people to abandon violence unless it is prepared to help build alternatives that are more powerful than violence.

---

Europe’s Opportunity

This is where Europe possesses a unique opportunity.

• Unlike the United States, Europe is not primarily viewed as a military actor.
• Unlike Iran, Europe is not invested in resistance as a regional strategy.
• Unlike Israel, Europe is not a direct combatant.
• Unlike Hamas or Hezbollah, Europe does not depend upon confrontation for political legitimacy.

This creates a different possibility.

Europe can help construct political leverage that competes with military leverage.
Not by replacing local actors. Not by imposing solutions.
But by creating conditions in which political pathways become more rewarding than armed ones.

---

A Different Kind of Power

Europe’s strongest instruments are not armies.
They are legitimacy, markets, diplomacy, institutions, reconstruction capacity and international partnerships. These tools are often underestimated because they operate slowly. Yet they can influence the fundamental calculation facing political movements.

If a Palestinian movement can achieve more through political recognition than through rockets, the attraction of rockets declines.

If Israeli security can be strengthened through regional guarantees rather than permanent control, the attraction of permanent control declines.

If regional actors can gain influence through diplomacy rather than confrontation, the attraction of confrontation declines.

The objective is not to eliminate conflict overnight. The objective is to change incentives.

---

The Role Europe Has Not Yet Claimed

Europe frequently speaks of peace. Less frequently does it speak of its own responsibility in making peace possible.

Part of the modern Middle East emerged through decisions in which European powers played significant roles. Europe cannot change that history. But it can influence what follows.

Its most important contribution may therefore not be another statement, another condemnation or another appeal for restraint. Its most important contribution may be helping create a political road that is stronger than violence.

A road that allows Palestinians to pursue self-determination without permanent armed resistance.
A road that allows Israelis to pursue security without permanent domination.
A road that allows regional actors to support political progress rather than military confrontation.

---

Looking Ahead

If Europe accepts this role, a practical question follows.

How can political leverage be made more powerful than military leverage?

How can Europe, together with regional and international partners, help create incentives strong enough to move actors away from conflict and toward coexistence?

These questions point beyond principles. They point toward initiative.

And that may be Europe’s next task.

---

References

[1] A European Declaration for Middle East Stability
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/a-european-declaration-for-middle-east.html

[2] EPS-001 - European Position Statement - Iran and Middle East Stability
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/eps-001-european-position-statement.html

[3] EPS-002 - European Position Statement - Israeli Settlement Expansion
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/eps-001-european-position-statement_0564720085.html

[4] EPS-003 - Hamas Armed Resistance
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/eps-003-hamas-armed-resistance.html

[5] The Road Not Taken in 1948
Completing What Was Left Unfinished
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/the-road-not-taken-in-1948.html

 

 

 

EPS-003 - Hamas Armed Resistance

A Proposed European Position Statement

Scope of this Position Statement

EPS-001 evaluated an actor: Iran.

EPS-002 evaluated a policy: Israeli settlement expansion.

EPS-003 evaluates a strategy: Hamas armed resistance.

That distinction matters.

This statement is not an assessment of Palestinian self-determination. The European Declaration for Middle East Stability recognizes Palestinian self-determination as a legitimate and unresolved question.

The question here is narrower:

Does Hamas armed resistance move the region toward or away from the direction identified by the Declaration Compass?

---

European Objective

Europe seeks a stable Middle East in which Israelis and Palestinians can pursue security, dignity and self-determination without permanently denying those same goods to one another.

Europe recognizes that Palestinian national aspirations remain unresolved.

Europe also recognizes that occupation, displacement, blockade, civilian suffering and political exclusion have created deep and legitimate Palestinian grievances.

But Europe must distinguish between legitimate grievances and strategies that make peace less achievable.

Hamas armed resistance is such a strategy.

The EU has long used terrorism-related sanctions against persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts, and has expanded measures targeting Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad networks and individuals connected with violent actions.

---

Compass Assessment

Future

Hamas presents itself as defending Palestinian rights and resistance against occupation.

Europe recognizes that Palestinian rights and self-determination cannot be ignored.

However, armed resistance contributes to long-term stability only if it opens a path toward a viable political future. Hamas armed resistance does the opposite.
It narrows the political future of Palestinians by binding their national cause to military escalation, civilian suffering and international isolation.
It also denies Israelis confidence that Palestinian self-determination can coexist with Israeli security.

A strategy that makes one people’s future appear to depend upon the fear or disappearance of another cannot produce durable peace.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Hamas armed resistance does not move the region toward a viable future for both peoples.

---

Security

No people should be expected to live permanently under occupation, blockade, siege, dispossession or military domination. But no people can be expected to accept attacks on civilians as a legitimate route to political change.

The Declaration Compass asks whether a strategy contributes to security that can ultimately be shared. Hamas armed resistance fails that test.
It produces fear among Israelis. It exposes Palestinians to devastating military retaliation.
It strengthens Israeli hardline arguments that security can only be achieved through force. It weakens Palestinian diplomatic credibility.
It turns Palestinian suffering into a recurring consequence of a strategy that cannot deliver reciprocal security.

Compass Assessment: Strongly Negative.

Hamas armed resistance increases insecurity for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

---

Reconciliation

Reconciliation requires both peoples to believe that their history and future can be acknowledged without erasing the other.
Hamas armed resistance works against that possibility. Its strategy reinforces Israeli historical fear of elimination. It also traps Palestinian historical grievance inside permanent mobilization rather than future-oriented political construction.

The 1988 Hamas Covenant rejected peaceful initiatives and international conferences as contradicting the movement’s principles, while later Hamas documents have been more politically nuanced but still do not amount to recognition of Israel as a legitimate future partner.

Europe should therefore distinguish between Palestinian historical grievance, which must be acknowledged, and armed strategies that prevent grievance from becoming reconciliation.

Compass Assessment: Strongly Negative.

Hamas armed resistance obstructs the transformation of historical grievance into coexistence.

---

European Position Statement

Europe should reject Hamas armed resistance clearly and consistently.

But Europe’s argument should not be limited to counterterrorism. It should also be strategic.

Europe rejects Hamas armed resistance not because Palestinian grievances are illegitimate, but because this strategy has failed to create a credible path toward Palestinian self-determination, reciprocal security or reconciliation.

Hamas armed resistance does not advance Palestinian self-determination.
It damages it. It does not create security. It destroys it. It does not move history toward reconciliation. It locks history into recurring violence.

Europe should therefore continue to oppose Hamas military structures, financing networks and violent political leadership.

At the same time, Europe should avoid treating the rejection of Hamas armed resistance as a rejection of Palestinian rights.

That distinction is essential.

European diplomacy should support:

• Palestinian self-determination through political rather than armed means;
• protection of Palestinian civilian life;
• humanitarian access and reconstruction;
• accountable Palestinian governance;
• exclusion of armed strategies targeting civilians from legitimate politics;
• political initiatives that preserve a future for both peoples.

Europe’s message should be clear:
Palestinian dignity is legitimate.
Palestinian self-determination is legitimate.
Armed resistance that targets civilians and denies coexistence is not.

---

Compass Conclusion

The Compass assessment does not constitute a rejection of Palestinian national aspirations.

It is an assessment of a specific strategy.

Hamas armed resistance moves the region away from the direction identified by the European Declaration for Middle East Stability.
It weakens the future. It destroys security. It obstructs reconciliation.

Europe should therefore oppose Hamas armed resistance not only because terrorism must be rejected, but because the Declaration Compass shows that this strategy moves Israelis and Palestinians away from the relationship required for durable peace.

A future for Palestinians cannot be built through a strategy that makes a future for Israelis impossible.
A future for Israelis cannot be secured by ignoring Palestinian aspirations.

The road forward requires both truths at once.

 

EPS-002 - European Position Statement - Israeli Settlement Expansion

 

European Position Statements (EPS)

About the EPS Framework

European Position Statements apply the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability to specific actors, policies and events.

Their purpose is not to determine who is right or wrong.

Their purpose is to evaluate whether developments move the region toward or away from long-term stability.

To do so, EPS uses the Declaration Compass:

Future
Does a policy contribute to a viable future for all peoples involved?

Security
Does a policy contribute to security that can ultimately be shared rather than permanently contested?

Reconciliation
Does a policy help transform historical grievance into coexistence and cooperation?

The Compass does not prescribe a final political settlement.
It provides a direction against which policies and developments can be evaluated.

The ultimate objective is a Middle East in which political entities increasingly conform to the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability and where peace becomes possible because enough people feel that their history has been acknowledged and incorporated into a shared future.

---

EPS-002 - Europe’s Position on Israeli Settlement Expansion

A Proposed European Position Statement

 

Scope of this Position Statement

EPS-001 evaluated an actor: Iran.
EPS-002 evaluates a policy: Israeli settlement expansion.
That distinction matters.

This statement is not an assessment of Israel as a state. Previous Declaration assessments suggested that Israel possesses strong institutional foundations and remains substantially compatible with the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability.

The question here is narrower:
Does Israeli settlement expansion move the region toward or away from the direction identified by the Declaration Compass?

---

European Objective

Europe seeks a stable Middle East in which Israelis and Palestinians can pursue security, dignity and self-determination without permanently denying those same goods to one another.

Europe recognizes Israel as a legitimate political entity with real security concerns.
Europe also recognizes that Palestinian self-determination remains unresolved.

European policy should therefore oppose developments that make a viable future for both peoples harder to achieve.

Israeli settlement expansion is one such development.

The EU has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on a two-state solution in line with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 states that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a violation under international law.

---

Compass Assessment

Future

Settlement expansion narrows the practical space within which a future political arrangement can emerge.

This does not mean Europe must already know the exact final structure of peace. The future may ultimately take the form of two states, confederal arrangements, shared institutions, or another configuration developed by the peoples themselves.
But every future arrangement requires space in which both national projects can remain politically viable.

Settlement expansion reduces that space.
It fragments territory, deepens mistrust, and strengthens the perception that Palestinian self-determination is being progressively closed off.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Settlement expansion moves away from a viable future for both peoples.

---

Security

Supporters of settlement expansion often present it as a security measure.
At local or tactical level, some settlement patterns may be defended as buffers or strategic depth.

But the Declaration Compass asks a broader question: Does this policy contribute to security that can ultimately be shared?
On that test, settlement expansion performs poorly.

It may strengthen some immediate Israeli security positions, but it also increases friction, fuels grievance, encourages radicalization and weakens confidence that political resolution remains possible.

The result is not reciprocal security.
It is security for one side that increasingly appears to depend upon the permanent insecurity of the other.

Compass Assessment: Mixed to Negative.

Settlement expansion may be defended in tactical security terms, but it undermines the conditions for durable mutual security.

---

Reconciliation

Reconciliation requires both peoples to believe that their history and future are being seen.

Settlement expansion sends the opposite message to many Palestinians. It suggests that their land, political future and national horizon are being steadily reduced.
Whether framed as ideology, security policy or domestic politics, the effect is similar. It makes it harder for Palestinians to believe that coexistence remains available. It also strengthens maximalist narratives that claim negotiation cannot work.

For Israelis, settlement expansion may appear as continuity, security or national attachment.
For Palestinians, it is widely experienced as encroachment.
A policy that deepens this gap moves away from reconciliation.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Settlement expansion makes historical grievance harder to transform into coexistence.

---

European Position Statement

Europe should continue to oppose Israeli settlement expansion clearly and consistently.
But Europe’s argument should not be only legal. It should also be strategic.

Settlement expansion is not merely a violation of international law. It is a policy that moves the region away from the direction required for durable peace. It narrows the space for a future for both peoples. It weakens the possibility of shared security. It makes reconciliation more difficult.

Europe should therefore connect its opposition to settlement expansion directly to its broader objective: preserving the possibility of a political relationship in which Israeli and Palestinian futures can develop together.

European diplomacy should support:

·       a freeze on settlement expansion;

·       stronger opposition to settler violence;

·       protection of Palestinian civilian life and property;

·       preservation of territorial and institutional space for Palestinian self-determination;

·       political initiatives that keep future coexistence possible.

Recent Western sanctions targeting settler violence and settlement-linked networks show that policy tools are increasingly available when political will exists.

---

Compass Conclusion

The Compass assessment does not constitute a judgment on Israel as a state.
It is an assessment of a specific policy.

Israel may remain a legitimate and institutionally compatible regional actor while still pursuing policies that move the region away from the Declaration’s direction.

Israeli settlement expansion is such a policy. It weakens the future. It complicates security. It obstructs reconciliation.

Europe should therefore oppose settlement expansion not only because international law demands it, but because the European Declaration Compass shows that it moves Israelis and Palestinians away from the relationship required for durable peace.