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.
No comments:
Post a Comment