A normative power? : the EU's role in the Middle East peace process

(1)

1

Title: ‘A normative power? The EU’s role in the Middle East Peace Process.’ Student name: Andrew McGill

Student i.d: 11623098

Supervisor: Dr. Dimitris Bouris Second Reader: Dr. Farid Boussaid

Programme Specialisation: Political Science (European Politics & external Relations (EPER) Email address: andy-mcgill@hotmail.com

(2)

2 University of

am[Title Here, up to 12 Words, on One to

Faculty of Social Sciences

MSc Political Science, European Politics and External Relations

‘A normative power? The EU’s role in the Middle East Peace Process.’

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Dimitris Bouris Second Reader: Dr. Farid Boussaid Author: Andrew McGill

Student number: 11623098

Date of Submission: 31st August 2018 Word Count: 20,643

(3)

3 Acknowledgements

I want to take this opportunity to thank my friends and family for their continued support throughout my completion of this Master’s thesis. I would like to pay special thanks to both my parents, Seamus and Grainne for whom none of this would have been possible. My peers, who provided me with the highest level of constructive feedback for my work has contributed significantly to the final product, for which I will be forever grateful. Finally I would like to show my gratitude to Dr. Dimitris Bouris, someone who I have looked up to for the entirety of my studies, and who became such a valuable source of knowledge, inspiration, recommendation, and critique.

(4)

4 Abstract

The European Union and the Middle East have always held on to a shared history built on geography, world war, conquest, religion, migration, politics, trade and so on. The growing significance of the European Union in international relations over the last four decades has allowed the relationship to take on a far more complex structure. However, with this increased level of complexity comes a plethora of opportunities to engage with the associated parties in an attempt to ease the suffering and resolve the conflict that has endured for centuries. How the EU is engaged with Israel and Palestine, and how it exercises its power is of paramount interest to the academic community as we witness this unique actor take its place among the superpowers of the world. What makes the EU such an exclusive actor is how it has engaged in conflict situations, and its strategy of attraction, persuasion, and negotiation. Continuing towards this image of a peaceful and prosperous entity, the study of the EU’s approach to international relations may signal the way for a 21st century far more distinct from that of the last century of suffering and conflict.

The design and makeup of a normative power requires a deep scrutiny of the methods invoked and the tools used in relations with third parties. Any superpower or international entity with the means to influence international events must be held accountable to this process of scrutiny in order to evaluate its intentions and its desired place in the world. How the EU has involved itself in the Middle East Peace Process will be the focus of this thesis, whereby I will evaluate its intentions, its interests, and its process of influencing the sides involved and in the pursuit of what ends. Analysing these elements of the relationship with both Israel and Palestine will allow me to determine the extent of the EU’s apparent Normative Power.

(5)

5 List of Abbreviations

AA Association Agreement

AP Action Plan

CPE Civilian Power Europe

EC European Community

ECFR European Council on Foreign Relations

ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations ECSC European Coal & Steel Community

EEAS European External Action Service

EEC European Economic Community

EMP Euro Mediterranean Partnership ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

ENI European Neighbourhood Instrument

EPE Ethical Power Europe

ESS European Security Strategy

EU European Union

EUBAM European Union Border Assistance Mission

EUPOL COPPS European Union Police Coordination Office for Palestinian Police Support FCCC Framework Convention of Climate Change

FTA Free Trade Agreement

ICJ International Court of Justice

IPE Ideal Power Europe

MENA Middle East & North Africa

MEP Member of the European Parliament MEPP Middle East Peace Process

MPE Market Power Europe

MS Member States

NPE Normative Power Europe

OPT(s) Occupied Palestinian Territories

PA Palestinian Authority

PCP Palestinian Civil Police

PLO Palestinian Liberation Organisation

ROO Rules of Origin

SSR Security Sector Reform

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency USA United States of America

(6)

6

1. Introduction

Over the last fifty years, the world has witnessed the rise and fall of powerful nation states, from the fall of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, to the rise of the Peoples Republic of China. The rise of the European Union (EU) after decades of convergence on a wide range of policy areas has amounted to a whole new area of study based on the conceptualisation of the EU as a world power. Devoid of deployable military assets, the EU is distinct from other global military actors whose sphere of influence is backed up by an ability to confer change via physical means. Ian Manners instead chose to conceptualise the EU by virtue of its ability to confer change over ideas, or “the power over opinion”. (Manners, 2002: 239) Its strive to influence ideas formulated in third countries has become a subject contested by the academic community.

The EU’s relationship with both Israel and Palestine presents an opportunity to assess the extent of EU influence on the ideas accumulated on both sides in the context of the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). The relationship with both parties is one that has endured despite many instances of extreme suspicion and distrust. The leadership of the Israeli state and of the Palestinians have epitomised questionable governing strategies which have made it difficult from a diplomacy perspective for the EU and its leaders. The mechanisms of power which dictate the EU’s external relations with Israel and Palestine have to be analysed by moulding the EU’s foreign policy against the elements that make up Normative Power Europe (NPE) as highlighted by Ian Manners. Can the EU lay claim to the NPE paradigm with its handling of economic, trade, and diplomatic relations with both the Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

The intention of this thesis is therefore to critically analyse EU external relations with Israel and Palestine, and to determine the extent that NPE holds its credibility with the parties involved.

The inclusion of the EU into the continuing project of the Middle East Peace Process has been the result of many decades of involvement from EU member states (MS), some of whom bear a sense of historical responsibility for imperialism, conquest, and genocide. More recently however, the relationship has been transformed with trade, aid and diplomacy accounting for the bulk of interactions between all three players. How the European Union attempts to deal with the actors who bear responsibility for the political change in this particular conflict will be discussed in depth in this thesis, taking into account the political and economic instruments and methods employed, eventually analysing the short and long term legacies of these instruments and methods.

(8)

8

2. Conceptual Framework & Literature Review

In this section I intend to introduce the key concepts that attempt to explain the EU as an international actor in the wider world which simultaneously scrutinise its interactions with third parties. The relevance and indeed significance of these concepts allow us to add to a wider debate surrounding what kind of European community of nations we want, and how we expect this Union to exert its power and influence exterior to its own territory and people.

The purpose of this thesis will be to focus on the conceptualisation of the EU as a power which will consider the various concepts Civilian Power Europe (Duchene 1972), Normative Power Europe (Manners. 2002), Ethical Power Europe (Aggestam, 2008), Empire Power Europe (Zielonka, 2008), Market Power Europe (Damro, 2012), Ideal Power Europe (Cebeci, 2012)). I will be making the connection between EU foreign policy in the context of continuing conflict in Israel and Palestine, and the Normative Power Europe concept. The effective operationalisation of the concept in the context of one of the most divisive conflicts in modern history has much inherent value for study of the European Union in a world of shifting powerful actors.

2.1 Conceptualising EU Power

The concept of Civilian Power Europe, borne out of the depths of the Cold War by Francois Duchene, attempted to prophesise the future relationship between continental Europe and the rest of the world. The collapse, or weakening of European military and economic might after both world wars, coupled with the rise of China, Japan, Russia and the various other developing nations of south east Asia, presented a unique opportunity for European countries to rebuild themselves in a fashion dissimilar from their past history of colonialism, conquest and control of foreign lands. The idea that Duchene leans towards is that of a unique Civilian Power, devoid of an inherent identity as a super military power as Duchene himself proclaims; “The one thing Europe cannot be is a major military power.” (Duchene, 1972: 37) The economic competitiveness that will arise with these nations towards the end of the 20th century spurred Duchene to call for European nations to converge on policy output and to commence a process of integration in order to secure its place in the world and contribute to human progress. (Duchene, 1972: 47) The convergence of European states based on a non-military commitment can establish the world’s first significant Civilian Power. Duchene’s contribution to the power construct of Europe was the first of the various

(9)

9

conceptualisations of European power, referenced by almost all of his successors on EU power concepts.

Ian Manners’ iconic piece on the idea of Normative Power Europe (NPE) will form a substantial element of my research on conceptualising the EU as a power. My decision to focus more exclusively on NPE (which is expanded upon later in this section) is due to the adoptive attitude of EU officials to the claim of NPE (European Commission 2012, 2018b), something that must be methodically scrutinised. (Forsberg, 2011: 1186; Manners, 2008: 59; Peterson, 2008: 69; Carta, 2008; Sjursen, 2006: 235) It is suggested that its normative nature predisposes the EU to act in a normative fashion (Manners, 2002), which can enable a power to disguise the entirety of its external relations through some kind of justifiable mechanism. NPE posits that the EU’s inherent commitment to certain norms and principles such as peace, liberty, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights allows it to shape what is considered normal in the international sphere by what it is, as opposed to what it says or does. (Manners, 2002: 252) Manners also identifies four other ‘minor’ norms which include social solidarity, anti-discrimination, sustainable development, and good governance. Manners’ research attempts to identify instances where the EU has looked to exercise its normative power as “it seeks to redefine international norms in its own image,” with the abolition of the death penalty being his prime empirical example. (Manners, 2002: 253) In his concluding remarks on this paper, Manners suggests that the EU’s normative basis “predisposes it to act in a normative way in world politics.” (Manners, 2002: 252) This assumption that the EU’s normative foundations predetermine its actions to be based on the five norms that I just mentioned, will be scrutinised through my research findings on EU relations with Israel and Palestine. Therefore I will operationalise NPE in this context and attempt to determine its integrity.

Possibly the most credible feature of the EU’s external power is that of its ideological power or the ability to define the “power of ideas” in its relations with third parties. (Galtung, 1973: 33) By virtue of what the EU is, what it stands for, and its various mechanisms in policy implementation, it has considerable power in penetrating and shaping the will of actors within its sphere of influence by extending its cultural norms and values beyond its borders. (Manners, 2002: 239)

According to Manners, the EU’s external relations are bound to these norms and values, and that they dictate EU foreign policy first and foremost. (Manners, 2002: 241) The EU is said to have an ability to determine what we consider as normal, and to export these norms around the globe through a process of persuasion and argumentation, or what is called norm diffusion.

(10)

10

While other nation states throughout the world may also lay claim to normative power, Manners suggests that NPE is far more distinct from these other normative actors due to its “historical context, hybrid polity and political-legal constitution.” (Manners, 2002: 240) The indivisible commitment to international law and treaties is a defining attribute of NPE, distinguishing it from similar entities. The historical context on which the EU was founded, with a backdrop of genocide, colonialism and world war (Adler, Crawford, 2006: 35) has induced a commitment to the norms and values that are also included in some of the most binding international law documents and declarations, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Manners, the EU has constructed its external relations policy on these documents giving itself the opportunity to be a model entity on the world stage. (Manners, 2002: 241)

In his 2006 response to Thomas Diez’s critique of the NPE concept, Manners reestablishes the idea that the “EU’s normative power in world politics was made with reference to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR) in the case of human rights.” (Manners, 2006: 171) Peace, liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are referenced further within the 1945 United nations Charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1990 Paris Charter, the EC’s 1989 Community Charter on the Fundamental Rights of Workers, the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the CoE’s 1961 European Social Charter, together with the EC’s 1989 Community Charter on the Fundamental Rights of Workers, the 1992 UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (FCCC), and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the FCCC. (Manners, 2006: 171)

The EU is identified as having a unique attitude towards third parties, and in this regard is elevated to a more ethics based platform because of its tendency to lean towards “the powers of persuasion, argumentation and ability to shame or confer prestige” to others. (Manners, 2010: 40) This is of course coupled with the untenable fact, as noted by Thomas Diez and Michelle Pace, that the EU is devoid of military capabilities. (Diez, Pace, 2011: 210) The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has become a prime focus of the debate surrounding NPE with various case studies, of which Palestine is one, pushing the concept to its limits.

The exercise of soft power instruments in an attempt to sway international events and discourse is a unique attribute of the NPE concept, a distinguishing factor that sets the EU aside from other actors with similar economic and political power. The tendency of the EU to show preference towards these kinds of power tools is based primarily on proportional responses to certain events while

(11)

11

simultaneously satisfying a legitimacy requirement. (Harpaz, Shamis, 2010: 582) The gap between the conceptual and theoretical aspect of the NPE framework, and the empirical side has provided much scope for discussion that is laid out in the vast space of literature on the topic. The various efforts at conceptualising the European Union as a significant actor on the international stage attempt at uncovering the dynamics that make it such an entity. The tension that undoubtedly exists among the various concepts can be found in large part to the way different academics interpret the activities of the EU, as being normative in nature, market oriented, or perhaps ethically oriented and so on. (Pardo, 2015: 18) Bridging that gap between the conceptual and the empirical will be the ultimate outcome of this thesis.

2.2 Contemporary conceptualisations of EU power; ever changing Union

The origins of the EU can be traced back to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the Treaty of Paris signed in 1951. Even before its conception this community of European nations gathered to formulate an economic union of sorts based on free and fair trade that would increase general levels of economic output among all nations with an ultimate goal of solidifying peace on the continent. Chad Damro’s work on Market Power Europe (MPE) and the continuation of this ethos glorifying the single market brings us to another attempt at conceptualising how the EU positions itself among other actors. The fundamental declaration of MPE, as stated explicitly here by Damro, is that “the EU is a power that can and does use its market and regulatory strengths to externalize internal policies.” (Damro, 2012: 684) The move to MPE signals a turning point in the evolution of the EU from “regional market integration experiment into the comprehensive and capable international market power that it is today.” (Damro, 2012: 685) By virtue of its combined economic superiority and the attraction of its prosperous single market, the EU can influence specific market practices, and implicitly coerce other actors to conform to EU standards and practices. The power derived from MPE makes economic and political conditionality a valuable tool from which the EU can exert its influence in the world by “offering membership through the enlargement process, using incentives and disincentives to push EU standards in multilateral settings, and threatening and actually bringing states to international dispute settlement mechanisms.” (Damro, 2012: 691)

Lisbeth Aggestam’s account of Ethical Power Europe (EPE) focuses on a conceptual shift of the EU from “what it ‘is’ to what it ‘does’” on the international stage. (Aggestam, 2008: 1) The concept is based on the evolution of the EU over the last two decades in the field of external relations.

(12)

12

Aggestam herself admits the existence of an overlap between the two concepts of NPE and EPE, but determines there to be various distinct dissimilarities. A defining feature of EPE is the apparent inherent empathetic attribute that the EU emanates when implementing its foreign policy to the wider world which includes a deep consideration “for others and the idea of doing least harm.” (Aggestam, 2008: 8) Despite the label of ethics attached to the EPE framework, this does not imply mutual exclusivity between ethics, power and pursuit of interests that the EU would exemplify in its external endeavours. Much of Aggestam’s contribution to EU foreign policy analysis is based on the intention surrounding the EU’s dealings with other actors and crises in particular. References to ‘altruism’, ‘the good of others’, ‘responsible power’, ‘persuasion, negotiation and dialogue’, and ‘multilateralism’ portray the EU as an alternative actor to traditional military powers who exercise coercion, unilateralism and a heavy handed, indiscriminate approach to international relations.

Moving away from the perspective of the EU as some form of ideational power or normative power as discussed prior, Aggestam envisages the EU to exercise its array of political and economic influence in a way that would achieve effective results in “crisis management, peacekeeping, state-building, and reconstructing failing states—complementing the important role it has already played in the fields of development aid and humanitarian assistance,” (Aggestam, 2008: 1) as mentioned in the European Security Strategy (ESS). Having a more tangible involvement in global affairs with a higher level of engagement and physical presence is the main point of divergence between EPE and its NPE alternate. (Aggestam, 2008: 3)

The Empire Power Europe framework works from a more critical evaluation of EU external power as discussed by Jan Zielonka (2008). The European Union as Empire explains how the EU’s approach to the international order has a strong resemblance to a contemporary imperial power based on the extension of its various system of norms and values. By virtue of its unmistakable economic, diplomatic, and political strength, “the EU tries to impose domestic constraints on other actors through various forms of economic and political domination, or even formal annexations.” (Zielonka, 2008: 471) This implicit coercion of standards and practices has been most successful in the EU’s eastern and southern neighbourhood, aimed specifically at instilling a region of stability and prosperity. Zielonka points to the EU’s more distinguished aspects which it operationalises to its advantage. These include the holding of a quarter of the worlds GNP, 40% of the worlds merchandise exports, the euro now becoming the world’s second most important international reserve and trade currency, and contributing to 40% of all international aid worldwide. The power that comes with these facts have enabled to the EU to coerce third parties to adhere to their own

(13)

13

standards and norms, with the alternative being complete exclusion and thus isolation from interactions with the EU’s empire, so to speak.

“Europe claims that its model of interstate cooperation has a universal character, and it tries to make other actors accept its norms and standards by applying economic incentives and punishments.” (Zielonka, 2008: 475) These incentives and punishments are operationalised in a far more subtle way than the various instruments used by other traditional imperial powers like France, the UK, and the US. The implicit nature of its exercise of power is found most commonly in mainly economic and bureaucratic terms. A core attribute of this framework is its Eurocentric composition. The policies established by the institutions have this claim of moral superiority according to Zielonka whereby the EU claims “that its norms are right and that it promotes the most efficient model of economic and political integration.” (Zielonka, 2008: 475) Engaging in and attempting to shape policies pertaining to consumer protection, quality of goods and services, food safety, environmental protection, competition, banking, accounting, government procurement, labour standards, trade practices etc. in countries that are outside of the EU represents an imperial agenda according to Zielonka, with the imperial core or centre based primarily around norms and values. (Zielonka, 2008: 479) Ultimately the consequences of imperial Europe on third parties is to guarantee the protection of EU interests in its neighbourhood and beyond. Zielonka makes a specific reference to the security of Europe’s energy supply from its neighbours. Combined, the EU consumes double the amount of energy as its surrounding neighbours despite its oil production being four times less. The strategy to avoid energy crises such as that in 1973 after the Yom Kippur War directly motivates EU interaction, influence, and imperialistic foreign policy initiatives with its neighbours.

A more recent contribution to the study of the EU as a power, Münevver Cebeci illustrates the inconsistencies within EU foreign policy and uses them to highlight an EU from a post-modern perspective. Cebeci reflects on the ‘EU as a model discourse’, that the EU stands atop a hill from which other international, supranational, regional, and national actors can observe and imitate for the greater good. Backed up by its success at regional integration and its unavoidable progress towards peace in Europe “the EU and its model are portrayed as the ideal, superior, desirable – the peaceful – against the conflictual others”. (Cebeci, 2012: 571) However, taking into account the inconsistencies that exist in the EU’s handling of international crises and disputes, the EU, according to Cebeci, does not fully live up to this ‘EU as a model’ mind-set. The bureaucratic nature of the EU’s institutional and decision making set up, along with its inability to induce positive change within conflicts along its borders bring its foreign policy efficacy into disrepute.

(14)

14

The countering alternative to the NPE paradigm is the Ideal Power Europe concept that is “based on the premise that the EU is an ‘ideal power’ even if it does not act in ideal ways.” (Cebeci, 2012: 576)

The EU’s positive track record of regional integration, promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as contributions to socio-economic and environmental policy on a global scale indeed allow it to be that model entity that can inspire and transpire progress. The IPE framework would suggest that the EU is that ideal international actor, not devoid of mistakes and contradictions, and one that could be characterised more simply as the best alternative to a long list of underperforming international actors.

2.3 Tuomas Forsberg; shaping the discourse, invoking norms

The literature on NPE can appear overwhelming due to its divisiveness among the academic community and the continued attention that the concept has maintained over the last number of years. Tuomas Forsberg, a Finnish academic who has focused much of his research on EU foreign and security policy has outlined an analytical framework that outlines a specific mechanism through which normative power is exercised. It is this mechanism that will assist me in operationalising Ian Manners’ NPE concept throughout. Forsberg’s framework will act as the interlocutor so to speak between Ian Manners’ concept and the operationalisation of these concepts. The four criteria, “persuasion, invoking norms, shaping the discourse, and leading through example”, (Forsberg, 2011: 1183) highlights how the EU attempts to spread its own norms and values to third parties. This will provide a framework from which I can analyse the operationalisation of NPE through EU foreign relations with Israel and Palestine. Forsberg’s work, which is elaborated on by Anders Persson attempts to explain the impact of EU efforts at delegitimising Israeli and Palestinian activities which conflict or do not conform to their own norms and values (democracy, peace, liberty etc.) (Persson, 2017:1426). The documentation of the successes and failures of the EU’s attempts at shaping the discourse and invoking norms will form the basis of my research on NPE and will be elaborated on in my concluding chapters.

2.4 Existing Literature

The divisiveness within the academic community on the efficacy of the NPE concept is testament to the fluidity of the concept, and to the many academics that have held firm on the terms use in the context of the MEPP. The opposition to the idea of the hierarchical significance of NPE in the grand

(15)

15

scheme of EU-Middle East relations can be found among Dimitris Bouris, (2011: 80) Rafaella Del Sarto, (2014: 213) Thomas Diez and Michelle Pace, (2011: 220), Guy Harpaz, (2007: 89) Sharon Pardo, (2015: 99). Conversely, more explicit recognition of the significant impact NPE has had on the conflict can be found elsewhere, in Roy Ginsberg, (2001: 106) Stephen Keukeleire and Jennifer MacNaughtan, (2008: 256), and Anders Persson (2015: 91, 2017: 1416).

The tug of war between the academic community regarding the materialisation of a deep rooted diffusion of EU norms and values in Israel and Palestine will inevitably endure until a meaningful breakthrough emerges in the MEPP as a result of EU foreign policy initiatives. However, and as noted by Anders Persson (see Persson 2015, Persson 2017) there are clear examples “of the EU diffusing and Israel adopting the core NPE norm of rule of law” (Persson, 2017: 1419), giving testimony to the traction gathered by NPE advocates. The far more troubling aspects of the conflict which have unequivocally prolonged the violence such as the many human rights violations committed on both sides, rocket attacks against Israel, and illegal settlement construction have not been at all halted by the normative power of the EU, an element of the study of the conflict that almost all academics mentioned above can converge on.

2.5 Limitations of the concept

I want to come back again to our discussion of the Normative Power Europe concept and to discuss what requisites need to be fulfilled in order to study NPE. As my research will focus predominantly on the normativity of the EU I will make a justification for the operationalisation of the concept here as well as its limitations in my overall research.

The claim to normative power is based on the premise of what ought to be done, and what we should consider to be the norm or basic foundation for any kind of entity. Thus in the case of the EU, in order for it to ideally claim some kind of normative based persona or label, it must act by a strict consideration to what ought to be done by some common denominator. That common denominator being the protection and promotion of the five norms and values. For the purpose of my research I want to make a distinction between interest driven actor, and normative power. While these two elements are not mutually exclusive, (Manners, 2002) certain policies that are by in large interest driven that are beneficial only to the EU cannot enforce the NPE concept. This brings us back to Lisbeth Aggestam’s Ideal Power Europe sentiment “of doing least harm.” (Aggestam, 2008: 8) When evaluating the effects of the EMP, critics pointed to the exclusion of cheap agricultural imports from North African countries in order to protect southern European countries agricultural industries. (Youngs, 2003: 428, Durac, Cavatorta, 2009: 15) A lack of consistency within EU

(16)

16

foreign policy reduces the EU’s ability to claim NPE, especially in the eyes of other regional and international actors. (Diez, Pace, 2011: 223) In successive sections I will further this line of discourse into EU involvement in Israel-Palestine, analysing the inconsistencies that exist in their policy tools there while also evaluating if EU interests are being secured above those of the indigenous people whom these policies are supposed to benefit, and discussing what this means to the NPE concept.

The use of the word ‘normative’ effectively self justifies the NPE concept, and presupposes it to be based on the highest of morals and ethical judgements. Through this element of circularity, the EU is able to proclaim its foreign policy on the greatest good. This strategy employed invariably by the institutions allows the opportunity for interest driven policies to be disguised as normative in nature. (Sjursen, 2006: 239)

The power that the EU has accumulated via the various treaties over the last half century do not come without their limitations. I will limit this review of these limitations to EU-Israeli-Palestinian relations. As Hiski Haukkala has pointed out, the rate of success for the EU’s attempt at exporting its norms and values have been mixed when comparing the projection of its normative power to countries where membership was not an option, and in cases where it was. A serious flaw within the NPE framework and the EU’s ability to exert its influence in the hope of an adoptive process of its norms and values by third actors, is the gap between a fact of non-accession (countries where the hope of enlargement is non-existent) and the hope that these parties will accept these norms and values. The rate of success in spreading typically considered European norms and values to non EU countries has proven unsatisfactory. The NPE concept has traditionally been underlined by the availability of both sticks and carrots relative to the possibility of total membership. In the case of both Israel and the Territories, the prospect of full and unconditional membership is but a distant image. “It is only by offering a full stake in European institutions and identity that the Union can expect others to subscribe in full to its norms and values.” (Haukkala, 2008: 1605)

A commonality amongst some of the concepts discussed in this chapter is the claim of moral superiority from the European Union. The agenda that prevails from the EU’s exertion of its power can be interpreted as a push for its own version of how the world should be governed. More specifically, within the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Euro Mediterranean Partnership, it has been constructed with a take it or leave it attitude for the recipient countries. This has transcended into the ‘EU as a model’ discourse presented by many in the academic community. (Aggestam, 2008: 1, Cebeci, 2012: 570) Further interpretations follow the imposition of EU norms, values, and regulations as a form of contemporary imperialism (see Europe as Empire, Zielonka,

(17)

17

2008) The attempt to converge both European and Arab civilisations towards a Westernised or Eurocentric middle ground has been conducted to ensure that stability in the neighbourhood maintains a steady growth. (Adler, Crawford, 2006: 35)

Taking a look at the empirical side of EU interactions in the Middle East at large and even perhaps its entire external relations with the wider world, it has involved the formulation of positions that have been established by “self-regarding and rational states through which national interests are pursued” (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007: 352) with those five core, and four minor norms underlying those EU MS’s interests. This thesis will focus on the ensuing conflict amongst those five norms as outlined by Manners, and the interest driven characteristic of EU institutions and member states respectively.

The gradual transferral of EU norms and values to neighbouring non MS’s is the baseline of the Normative Power Europe paradigm which has evaluated the EU’s various foreign policy missions over the last three decades, including the ENP and the EMP. Critics of NPE (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007: 355) point to this transferal of norms and values from the Union to third parties, as an attempt at recasting the Middle East in the normative mould of Europe. The inscription of these norms and values into the societal setup of the recipient country has been formulated in a way that advances the interest of the EU in some form or another.

The distinction that is made in Helene Sjursen’s 2006 paper on ‘The EU as a Normative power’ which critically evaluates the imperative distinctions that need to be highlighted regarding soft and hard power instruments. Sjursen, like others before her (Manners, 2002, Adler, Crawford 2006). have noted the lack of military capabilities on the part of the union. This is a core feature of the EU which allows it to distance itself in stature from other super military powers. In its stead, military power is replaced with a tendency to employ soft power or ‘civilian instruments’ (Sjursen, 2006: 238), something that is a foundation stone of NPE.

“Most importantly, perhaps, civilian instruments, although often referred to as ‘soft’ instruments, are not necessarily benign and neither are they necessarily non-coercive. Economic sanctions can cause serious harm, and what is more, their effects are often indiscriminate. They may hit civilians and in particular children very hard. So the use of non-military instruments cannot on its own be enough to identify a polity as a ‘normative’ power.” (Sjursen, 2006: 239)

(18)

18

These civilian or soft power tools that the EU has developed are often exercised without due consideration to their effects on indigenous populations. While the non-military capacities of the EU add to our evaluation of the EU as a normative power, the negative consequences of soft power to civilians acts as a negatory aspect.

Conclusion

In this chapter I sought to give a descriptive overview of the various concepts that have attempted to explain how the EU exerts its power. The concepts of NPE, IPE, EPE, MPE, and Europe as Empire, have many overlaps which I have discussed. In the next section I will provide the reader with a historical context on EC/EU relations with the conflict and the two conflicting sides, making the connection between the conceptual and empirical easier to establish. The analysis of these concepts is extremely important for the debate surrounding what the EU is, and what we want it to be. The European project has been by in large a success, especially with the internal improvements made among its member states. Its own evolution has seen its influence extend beyond its borders, something that involves an intricate and delicate formulation of its foreign policy. In the section that follows, I will continuously refer back to this chapter as reference to how the EU has been involving itself in the MEPP through the ENP and other foreign policy frameworks.

(19)

19

3. Methodology

In this chapter I will present to the reader how I intend on connecting the conceptual framework to the empirical chapter of my thesis which will come later. This will include an overview of how I will effectively operationalise the Normative Power Europe concept. I will be using specific instances which cover EU involvement in the MEPP through bilateral relations with both Israel and Palestine. Within this chapter I will also be highlighting the motivations for my thesis research and emphasise the relevance of operationalising EU external relations under the Normative Power Europe lens, and to analyse the extent of EU normative power in the MEPP. I will briefly explain the framework of my later research by operationalising the five norms of NPE and applying them to the MEPP and the impact they have had on the overall situation if any. I will incorporate previous studies and academic articles, as well as providing my own take on this contested term.

3.1 Operationalisation of NPE

The foundations of the NPE concept are premised on an inherent commitment to the five core norms of peace, liberty, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights as laid down by Ian Manners himself. (Manners, 2002: 252) For the purpose of this thesis I will be focusing on these five norms. The purpose of this thesis will be to determine whether or not the EU is acting as a normative power with Israel and Palestine within the context of the Middle East Peace Process. I will examine what it means to be a normative power by analysing the work of Ian Manners and applying these conditions to EU relations within the MEPP.

It is assumed thereafter that from this I can analyse EU external relations based on its commitments to these norms and values, and determine the credibility of NPE in the MEPP.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, I will use Tuomas Forsberg’s work on the exercise and implementation of EU normative power which will allow me to effectively show how the EU attempts to commit to and promote Manners’ five norms (democracy, liberty, peace human rights, rule of law) in its external relations through practices of persuasion, invoking norms, shaping the discourse, and through the power of example. (Forsberg, 2011: 1191) Forsberg’s work is certainly related to the work of Manners and NPE, but is distinct in that it describes the mechanism of promoting and installing Manners’ norms and values.

(20)

20

Forsberg pays reference to Nathalie Tocci’s work on NPE by stating that “in order to have an effective or “powerful” normative foreign policy an international actor not only needs to pursue normative goals through normative means it also needs to achieve a discernible normative impact.” (Tocci, 2008: 15, Forsberg, 2011: 1191) He goes further by including a distinction that separates a normative power from our understanding of traditional power constructs such as having a foreign policy that is value oriented rather than the pursuance of a foreign policy that is predicated on means and ends. (Forsberg, 2011: 1192)

As mentioned prior, Manners’ NPE concept follows certain criteria which are used to evaluate whether or not a power, in this case the EU, can be termed a normative power in its external relations. The criteria in question are the fulfilment and promotion of his five core norms, democracy, human rights, liberty, peace, and the rule of law. Taking Tuomas Forsbergs academic research on how the EU manages to satisfy these norms and values in its external relations, he lists four ways in which the EU does this, namely by its power of persuasion, invoking norms, shaping the discourse, and power of example. Forsbergs work has highlighted the mechanism that the EU employs in order to satisfy the five norms that supposedly make it a normative power. Due to the limited space offered in this thesis research, I have chosen to focus on two of Forsbergs mechanisms that the EU uses to become a normative power, invoking norms and shaping the discourse.

Forsbergs work shows how the EU exerts its power within a complex international setting by: a) Invoking norms

b) Shaping the discourse

The EU is said to obtain the power to invoke norms, and the power to shape the discourse. (Forsberg, 2011, Persson 2015, 2017, 2018) I want to see if the EU’s power to invoke norms and shape the discourse is done in a way that satisfies Manners’ norms and values.

Therefore to arrive at a conclusion and answer my research question, I will look at how the EU invokes norms and shapes the discourse based on the norms it is supposed to abide by (peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law, human rights). If the EU’s efforts at invoking norms, and shaping the discourse in the MEPP fall in line with the elements which make up NPE (democracy, rule of law etc.), then my concluding remarks will lean towards a positive evaluation of NPE. If the EU’s efforts at invoking norms and shaping the discourse in the MEPP are not in sync with the norms necessary for NPE then my conclusion will have a critical final assessment of NPE.

(21)

21

Official EU documents, statement, and declarations will form the basis for my list of primary sources. To compliment these sources I will also include an analysis of books, journals and articles, while concluding my research with my own interpretations and conclusions. I have engaged with relevant elected officials within the European Parliament such as Ms Martina Anderson MEP who provides a particular angle on the EU’s handling of the MEPP, which will be considered in my eventual findings. The correspondence was aimed at providing an insight into an apparent normative power’s involvement in a major international conflict and used to compliment and at times balance the academic literature used throughout my research.

3.2 Rhetoric & Practice

When evaluating the EU’s involvement in the MEPP, it is easy to identify a normative message within official statements, press releases, and interviews with high ranking EU officials on the conflict. The language among these sources all follow the same direction as if taken from a predetermined script on how to present oneself as a spokesperson of NPE. The repetition of the same norms and values, or Manners’ norms and values, are evident throughout.

“The European Union (EU) works with the Palestinian Authority (PA) to build up the institutions of a future democratic, independent and viable Palestinian State living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.

The EU is active in the Middle East Peace Process and is a member of the Middle East Quartet (with the United States, Russia and the United Nations), working towards a two-state solution based on the 2003 Roadmap for Peace. These efforts are regularly debated by the EU Council of Ministers.” (EEAS, 2016a)

Operationalising the concept beyond mere rhetoric from the institutions and its official spokespersons, can help us bridge the gap between rhetoric and practice and determine the efficacy of the concept at large. A core aspect of the thesis will be to go beyond the rhetoric and to evaluate more tangible EU activities.

3.3 Constructing the discourse

One of the central tenets of the NPE paradigm outlines the importance of obtaining the power of ideas, as a significant replacement concept to traditional military or civilian actors. (Manners, 2002:

(22)

22

239) Therefore there is a need to analyse positive considerations to the EU’s normative power within the context of the peace process (Persson, 2017: 1416).

Over the last half century, the EC/EU has reported on the hostilities in Israel and Palestine. The fundamental ability of an actor to determine the language used, and to direct what issues are to be addressed in the domain of internationally recognised forums and institutions like the United Nations Security Council, while implicit in nature in the grand context of power politics, is imperative to NPE. Manners has reiterated throughout his work (Manners, 2002: 252, Manners, 2008, Manners, 2009) that the nature of the EU’s foreign policy is characterised by the way in which it can define international norms, values, standards, and regulations. “The ability of the EU to diffuse norms, set examples and shape what is seen as normal in world politics, in other words its normative power, becomes very important.” (Persson, 2017: 1416) As the ability to construct the discourse is a major foreign policy asset and also a part of the NPE framework, I will examine to what extent the EU has been able to shape the discourse on events of the MEPP.

Implementing constructive change within the parameters of police training missions (EUPOL COPPS), border management missions (EUBAM), judicial reform, and so on fall within the jurisdiction of the EU’s mission to spread values relating to the rule of law. (Manners, 2002: 241) European Union strategies that are bound to its “political legal constitution” (Manners, 2002: 240) and that are consistently operationalised give significant credence to the concept that I am discussing. Its norms and its conduct in the declaration of its foreign policy are bound to the treaty based legal order that will inevitably decide its interaction with all sides of this conflict. The level of consistency for the spread of positive attitudes towards the rule of law will be analysed here. In accordance with our understanding of Normative Power Europe along with other concepts which cover a theme of the EU as a sporadic interest driven actor (Ideal Power Europe, see Zielonka, 2008) it is important to evaluate the source of EU motivations into its determined inclusion in the peace process. Important to consider, interests and normativity are not mutually exclusive elements of an actors international agenda, however, in the spirit of the NPE constructed debate, the idea of doing least harm, or acting at least in an ideal way (Cebeci, 2012: 576) needs to be examined to determine the extent of NPE diffusion of norms, values, and regulations.

3.4 EU External Relations; normative power and ulterior motives

This section below will present a summarised version of how I intend to methodise my research. I will begin by providing a brief analysis of EC/EU relations with Israel and Palestine during the Yom Kippur War, which will highlight the challenges brought about between interests and NPE.

(23)

23

The 1973 Yom Kippur War ignited what was to be one of the major regional conflicts of the 20th century involving almost every member of the UN Security Council. While military hostilities were limited to Israeli territory and its surrounding/warring nations, the effects of the war were felt right across the world, most notably due to the ensuing oil crisis. European Community (EC) member state sympathy was directed by in large to the Israelis who would eventually be crowned victors of the combined Arab invasion. Prior to the war, the EC member states had a non-existent common strategy or position with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Soetendorp, 1999: 93)

In his book evaluating the adoption of a common European position on the conflict, Ben Soetendorp determines that friendly relations with the Arab oil producing nations had become a top priority due to a growing European dependence on Arab oil. (Soetendorp, 1999) The use of the oil weapon as a punishment for European ignorance towards Arab aspirations in the Middle East (of which the Palestinian question was a primary concern) awakened the EC and forced their hand in the interest of its economic and energy security.

“The goal of the oil exporting Arab countries in utilising their oil power during the October war of 1973 was to change the political attitude of the US and some countries in western Europe towards the Arab-Israeli conflict.” (Soetendorp, 1999: 100)

While, as Nathalie Tocci has noted, “the Middle East has always been a principal area of European concern” (Tocci, 2005: 1), it was only after the Yom Kippur war and the use of the oil weapon that the EU determined that a stance in favour of Palestinian emancipation was necessary to protect European energy security in the height of the Cold War. It would not be completely out of the question to assume that European provisions of diplomatic intrigue for the Palestinian movement stemmed from this concern relating to Arab oil imports. This throws into doubt whether or not the decision to ensure protection over the Palestinians was based on a deep consideration towards any of Manners’ five core norms; peace liberty, democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights. (Manners, 2002: 242) This brief analysis on the motivations behind the initial show of support from EC member states during the 1970’s for the Palestinian people clouds our declaration that EU-Israeli-Palestinian relations were founded on an early form of NPE. As Asle Toje notes, “the will to engage in foreign policy activities that are not means/ends oriented, but rather a statement of values is a trait that distinguishes the EU from other foreign policy actors.” (Toje, 2008: 126) A more contemporary analysis of the relationship and its underpinnings will be conducted in this thesis.

(24)

24

The discussion on the link, or lack thereof, between this evaluation of the efficacy of NPE and the exertion of particular core norms must be the prime point underscoring this thesis. Operationalising peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law, and human rights as norms in Israel and Palestine will be a main objective for this thesis which will go towards my final evaluation on the extent to which NPE can claim sufficient and credible integrity in this conflictual setup.

“If the EU is to be characterised as ‘normative actor’ then there must be scope for identifying how the Union’s norms are exported and the extent to which these norms are then internalised by the actors to which they are directed.” (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007: 350)

The above extract has been taken from Cavatorta and Tonra’s piece on the normative foundations of EU foreign policy, and will form the underlying thread for this section in particular but also for the rest of this thesis in general. Under the above assumption, and in the context of EU efforts at state building, democracy promotion, establishing a lasting peace in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT’s), and so on, we must evaluate the transferral of norms and values from the EU to the relevant authorities in Israel and Palestine. The internalisation of norms and values that the EU has always expressed is a requisite in order for NPE to have the influence and power that is deserving of our study. Cavatorta and Tonra also refer to the evolution of the Union which commenced with the cooling of relations between France and Germany in the last century, which was followed then by the accession of the post dictatorial states of southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece), and now the possibility of accession for the various border countries in the east and south. (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007: 351) The spread of the European project beyond its initial borders of the six founding members in the pursuit of reconciliation, peace and progress has an inner essence of a normative power especially when looking at the spread of its core values and norms. However, as mentioned prior, while this commitment is apparent within the sphere of rhetoric, this thesis will look beyond formal statements and declarations, and analyse EU responses to the conflict on the ground. Often a citation is presented of the EU’s reiteration of its commitment to its common core values in the Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice Treaties (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007: 351) giving it extra edge towards Ian Manners’ concept on NPE. The authors’ reference to the founding treaties of the EU which are laden with norms and values has an imperative link with Manners’ own declaratory statement regarding the EU’s own “political-legal constitution.” (Manners, 2002: 240)

Taking a look at the empirical side of EU interactions in the Middle East at large and even perhaps its entire external relations with the wider world, it has involved the formulation of positions that have been established by “self-regarding and rational states through which national interests are

(25)

25

pursued” (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007: 352) with those five core, and four minor norms underlying those European MS interests. As mentioned above (see Yom Kippur War 1973), there is evidence which suggests that EU-Middle East relations have been extensively defined by the protection of European interests most notably the protection of the flow of natural resources from oil rich nations, as well as issues relating to migration and terrorism. A critical analysis of this balance between NPE and interest protection will be conducted.

The gradual diffusion of EU norms and values to neighbouring non MS’s is the baseline of the Normative Power Europe paradigm which has evaluated the EU’s various foreign policy missions over the last three decades, including the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the Euro Mediterranean Policy (EMP). Critics of NPE (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007) point to this transferal of norms and values from the Union to third parties, as an attempt at recasting the Middle East in the normative mould of Europe. The inscription of these norms and values into the societal setup of the recipient country has been formulated in a way that advances the interest of the EU in some form or another. (Cavatorta, Tonra, 2007: 355)

3.5 Territorial Differentiation Strategy

I will conclude my empirical chapter with an analysis of the literature on the foreign policy strategy termed territorial differentiation, first formulated by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). The term has been used to describe the EU’s newly favoured (but unofficially adopted) approach to the MEPP which draws a clear distinctive line between sovereign Israeli territory, and that of the Occupied Territories of the Palestinians. “The EU’s new differentiation strategy, defined by the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) as ‘a variety of measures taken by the EU and its member states to exclude settlement-linked entities and activities from bilateral relations with Israel’ (Lovatt, 2016: 2), therefore provides a new and very interesting case study for the EU’s normative power.” (Persson, 2018: 193) Territorial differentiation as discussed by Anders Persson (2018) incorporates key areas where the diffusion of EU norms, values, standards, or practices have taken shape in both Israel and the OPT’s. My analysis with regard to territorial differentiation will focus predominantly on the rule of law attribute of NPE, and will consider areas where the strategy can be directed toward other areas.

3.6 Research Question, motivation and relevance

My completion of a study on a paper by Luiza Bialasiewicz (2012) entitled “Off-shoring and Out-sourcing the Borders of EUrope: Libya and EU Border Work in the Mediterranean” inspired much

(26)

26

of my decision to look at operationalising the various concepts of EU as a power in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bialasiewicz outlines a common tactic exercised by EU agencies and institutions towards third parties along its periphery. This tactic is one whereby democracy promotion and peace building (two elements of NPE) are aimed at “stabilisation – and (norm)alisation – of a region that lies just too close for European comfort.” (Bialasiewicz, 2012: 846) In her paper, Bialisiewicz examines the shift in rhetoric and practice of the ENP, with such a shift going from friendly collaboration and cooperation, to an exclusively security led strategy. The securitisation of migration and border protection/management has become a core focus of EU foreign policy according to the author, who proclaims that explicitly interest driven policies are being presented in some kind of normative veil. Bialisiewicz notes that a “2009 report by the EU Court of Auditors uncovered that 90% of all EU aid to the Neighbourhood partner countries of the Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova was spent on ‘border management’.” (Bialasiewicz, 2012: 846) The ‘securitisation of border controls and migration by the EU led to the ‘out-sourcing’ and ‘off-shoring’ of EU matters. “By making development aid conditional on cooperation on border control, the EU is turning development aid into a tool for implementing restrictive and security-driven immigration policies which are at odds with its commitment to make migration work for development.” (Bialisiewicz, 2012: 851)

Having a replicated attitude towards the MEPP would inhibit the successful claim to NPE, as it would be geared solely to the protection of EU interests. Bearing this experience in mind, I wanted to turn our attention to looking at EU involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and uncovering the reasons that drove the European Union to take on such a substantial role in a conflict that has on many occasions played host to proxy wars and has attracted the attention of each of the worlds superpowers. The research question below will form the foundation stone of this thesis, and will be discussed at greater length over the course of this thesis research.

a) To what extent is the EU a normative power in the Middle East Peace Process?

Conclusion

The objective of this chapter was to present to the reader the chosen methodology of my research. How I intend on operationalising the Normative Power Europe concept and more specifically how to apply the five core norms of the concept to specific case studies. Studying how the EU has based its Middle East policy on shaping the discourse and invoking norms, through an explicit commitment to Manners’ norms will allow my answering of my research question. By testing these

(27)

27

norms and values against the divisive issues that have made the conflict what it is today we can effectively determine the effectiveness of the term, and critically analyse what kind of actor the EU has been. Adherence to the components of NPE will be challenged in the concluding chapters that follow. The inclusion of my research question, a brief description of my motivations behind this thesis and the relevance of the study have also been included. In the next section I will be exploring the evolution of EU-Israeli-Palestinian relations over the last century in order to contextualise my area of research and my eventual findings.

(28)

28

4. Historical Context; History of EU/Israeli/Palestinian Relations

European ties and involvement in the Middle East and in particular with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been developed over a number of centuries (Newman, Yacobi, 2018: 173) by way of geography, religion, conflict, trade, energy, humanitarian intervention and many other factors which have shaped the region continuously, making its inner structure a fluid concept because of its ever changing nature. Through various declarations, accords, and processes the EC/EU has attempted to instil a peace project similar to that of its own by facilitating integrative measures with both sides of the armed struggle. In this section of my thesis I will provide the reader with a brief historical overview of EU-Israeli-Palestinian relations which will assist the reader in connecting the conceptual framework with the empirics of the thesis which will follow this section. It will chronicle key events that have had crucial impacts on the state of the peace process, and will then move into current state of relations based on the EU’s Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and European Neighbourhood Policy, and the economic, aid and trade components of today’s relationship. The state of these relations has rarely been consistent, and has provided a rigorous test of the diplomatic will of all sides involved. The history of European interaction with modern day Israel and Palestine could be traced back many centuries, however for the purpose of this thesis I will limit my historical analysis from the 1960’s to the present day.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire signalled the beginning of Western impositions into the modern day Middle East, with British and French mandates determining the new boundaries and borders of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine. (Newman, Yacobi, 2018: 175, Bouris, 2012: 48) Dividing up conquered/liberated Arab lands after both first and second world wars was to be the norm over the first half of the 20th century. A fundamental consideration of the conflict is related to the strong identity dimension of each sides varying aspirations. As Haim Yacobi and David Newman have established, “the Territorial claims were always couched in the terminology of Jewish/Palestinian homeland and historical/religious rights, with borders (tangible issues) being no more than a spatial and geographical expression of the core identity issues underlying the conflictive aspirations between Zionism as a national movement and Palestinian nationalism.” (Newman, Yacobi, 2018: 178)

The memory of the holocaust bears quite a significant strain on Europe’s relationship with Israel and Palestine and has dictated European sympathy for Israel. French support for example came

(29)

29

most importantly through scientific cooperation contributing to the creation of the Israeli nuclear programme in Dimona in the 1950’s. On the other hand, Palestinians strongly associate European power with policies inconsistent with the interests of Palestinians and so an untrustworthy partner historically. The Suez crisis of 1956 conducted by the Tripartite forces of Israel, Britain and France is indicative of the interest driven nature that European powers have portrayed in the post WWII era. Thus, the modern day European Union of nations has to juggle its responsibility for its past, while simultaneously trying to shape a future that is consistent with its norms and values.

4.1 The European Community; the 1960’S, 70’S & 80’S

Ever since its creation in 1948, Israel’s diplomatic relations with its surrounding neighbours have been pushed to their limits. The immediate survival of the Jewish state after its creation was an almost constant battle as increased military expenditures, exercises, and rhetoric plagued the region. The accumulated tension soon materialised itself in 1967 into a pre-emptive Israeli military strike on Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the regional champions of anti-Israeli sentiment. The painful legacy of the conflict, which ended with an Israeli victory was one that would long outlive the wars participants. The Israeli acquisition of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula and East Jerusalem vastly extended Israeli territory, enabling it to claim new lands to begin extended Israeli residential occupancy and economically active zones. The conflict also led to the displacement of many Palestinians which solidified Israeli presence in their newly acquired Palestinian Territories. The 6 Day War did nothing to improve the relations between Israel and Europe, with French President Charles De Gaulle abandoning a strict French alliance with the Israelis towards one that was more attentive with other Arab states. (Miller, 2011: 10) “Following the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, successive Israeli governments have promoted a policy of settlement construction, consolidation and expansion within these areas” (Newman, Yacobi, 2018: 176), and in affect expanding its territorial sovereignty into internationally recognised Palestinian territory.

The origins of EU/EC relations with the Palestinian Territories and Israel can be traced back to the early 1970’s after the conclusion of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Since then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has featured prominently on the EU’s agenda. (Voltolini, 2012: 11) The war, initially instigated by the surrounding Arab nations of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and other small expeditionary forces against the Jewish State ended with an Israeli strategic and symbolic victory. The reasoning behind the invasion is indicative of the pan-Arabism that bound all Arabs (as well as

A normative power? : the EU's role in the Middle East peace process

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Conceptual Framework & Literature Review

3. Methodology

4. Historical Context; History of EU/Israeli/Palestinian Relations