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
No comments:
Post a Comment