Normative power Europe? : EU’s policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

(1)

Normative Power Europe? EU’s policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Author: Cormac Flanagan Student Number: 11319194 Supervisor/1st

Reader: Dr. Dimitris Bouris 2nd

Reader: Dr. Jana Krause

Word Count: 23,331

MSc Political Science Thesis European Politics and External Relations

(2)

Acknowledgements

I would like to mention a few people who have helped me in my research for this thesis. Firstly, I am in gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Dimitris Bouris at the University of

Amsterdam for sharing his knowledge, time, assistance and lending me his good name for contacts with me. I must also thank the University of Amsterdam for making my studies enjoyable and successful with their fine facilities and exceptional lecturers.

I express my thanks to the interviewees who took time out of their busy schedules to accommodate me and helped further my knowledge.

I am grateful to have met many great people during my studies in Amsterdam especially my classmates and friends. Many thanks for being there for me through thick and thin.

Last and by no means least, I also wish to thank my parents, Siobhán and Fergus for giving me the opportunity to further my studies and supporting me in anything I have ever pursued as well as my brothers Cian and Colm for their constant support and brotherly love.

(3)

Abbreviations

AA Association Agreement

ACAA Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products AFET Foreign Affairs Committee

ALDE Alliance for Liberals and Democrats for Europe BDS Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

CPE Civilian Power Europe

DG NEAR Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations EC European Commission

EEC European Economic Community

ECCP European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine EMP Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy EP European Parliament

EPE Ethical Power Europe EU European Union

EUFP European Union Foreign Policy INTA International Trade Committee MENA Middle East North Africa

MEP Member of the European Parliament MPE Military Power Europe

NPE Normative Power Europe OT Occupied Territory

PLO Palestinian Liberation Organisation PA Palestinian Authority

PEGASE Mécanisme Palestino-Européen de Gestion de l’Aide Socio-Economique PLC Palestinian Legislative Council

TEU Treaty of the European Union TIM Temporary International Mechanism UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNSCOP United Nations Special Committee on Palestine US United States of America

(4)

This thesis seeks to analyse and determine the extent of the efficiency of the European Union (EU) when utilising the concept of Normative Power Europe (NPE) in Israel and Palestine with a specific focus on the role the EU, through its foreign policy, has endured in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as the Agreement between Israel and the EU on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA), approved by the European Parliament on November 11th

2012 and later, by the Israeli government on December 20th 2012 (European Commission, 2013) and the EU-Israel Technical Arrangement of 2005 which focuses on the labelling of goods within occupied territories (OT) being the two key case studies.

Trade relations with the EU and Israel, which is one of the partners of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP), a multi-purpose initiative that, in areas of trade, aims at removing barriers in the area of investment and trade between Southern Mediterranean countries and the EU as well as between Southern Mediterranean countries themselves (European Commission, 2017a), are of great salience to both parties with the EU being Israel’s primary trading partner totalling €34.3 billion in 2016 (European Commission, 2017b). To put into scale the sheer size of the EU as a market, Israel is only the 24th

largest trading partner with the EU, only grasping 1% of the market share and only 19th

most exported state with €21.1 billion or 1.2% of the market share (European Commission, 2017c). Despite the gap in partner significance, Israel is still a great partner of the EU with chemicals, transport equipment and machinery and other manufactured goods being their most exported commodities (European Commission, 2017a).

In contrast, trade relations between the EU and Palestine are sparse due to certain barriers of trade being placed by Israeli forces along the borders with the number of settlements of Palestine being an example. In this case, Israel holds the autonomy over the outlets and with that, create a barrier of trade through complications and unappealing measures the Israelis put forward in a bid to make trade as awkward as possible for the Palestinians. With that in mind, trade between the EU and Palestine only reached a total of €272 million in 2016 (European Commission, 2017d) with imports from Palestine, mainly in the sector of agricultural products, carrying 79.6% of the total and chemicals of the pharmaceutical nature and tropical fruits making the rest adding up to a total of just €17 million (ibid). From an exporting point of view,

(6)

which totalled €255 million, pharmaceutical chemicals, agricultural products, and mainly machinery and transport equipment were the key attributors (ibid).

The breaching of international law and the violation of human rights in Palestine through the Israeli regime in the acts of building settlements on occupied land, which violates Article 49(6) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions IV (It Is Apartheid, 2017) is a tentative issue with the EU. Through the means of normative power, the EU attempt to steer Israel towards more considerate actions, evident through EU foreign policy (EUFP), with Article 2 of the Association Agreement between both parties being a fitting example of such normative power tactics the EU employs, as it states that the relations between the parties ‘shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles’ (European External Action Service, 2017). However, with the Palestinian run website, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (2017) describing the current antics of Israeli troops in Palestine as being one that represents a, ‘settler colonialism’ which as they define as, ‘a form of colonialism in which settlers create societies that are distinct from the indigenous population and seek to control land and resources and establish their own economy and system of governance’ (ibid), it is not of any great surprise that such disputes regarding the passing of the ACAA were present as many Members of the European Parliament (MEP) and others far afield aware of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) were worried of the conduct and treatment of Israel towards their neighbours which will be approached later in this thesis.

Evident in the draft recommendation by the EP Committee on International Trade (INTA) rapporteur, Vital Moreira questioned the double standards and potential conflict such a move would cause in his explanatory statement by stating that this upgrade in EU-Israel trade relations would result in the application of the protocol not being consistent with the Union’s ‘firm condemnation’ (European Parliament, 2012) of Israeli policy regarding the treatment towards Palestine with reference to the continuation of illegal settlements in the OTs, the breach of fundamental rights of the Palestinians, the annexation of East Jerusalem, the Gaza economic blockade as well as the freedom of movement, freedom to work and the right to self-determination (ibid).

(7)

With the EU currently representing twenty-eight member states, it is acknowledged that with such a large scale of trade with Israel for example, conflict is almost inevitable. That conflict can occur in numerous areas, whether that being conflict of interests, agenda or ethics and that is undoubtedly the case regarding the EU and Israel as many EU countries condemn the illegal acts of Israel to their Palestinian neighbours. With that in mind, it is of no surprise that when the ACAA came to the negotiation table in Brussels, it was met with great dispute, as will be discussed in this thesis.

How the EU is perceived within and outside its boundaries varies greatly. From the concept of a civilian power (Duchêne, 1972) to a military power (Bull, 1982), to a post-modern superpower (McCormick, 2006) or as an ethical power (Aggestam, 2008) and Europe as an empire (Zielonka, 2008). However, arguably the most common and debated conceptualisation related to this thesis is that of Ian Manners (2002) who firmly believes that NPE, a notion he introduced as being ‘the ability to shape conceptions of “normal” in international relations’ (ibid:239) best describes the running and objectives of the EU. In a bid to add further legitimacy to his notion, Manners distinguishes the concept of normative power from the previous notions on military power (Bull, 1982) and civilian power (Duchêne, 1972) by placing the identity and nature of the EU into a separate framework where the aims of changing ‘the state as the centre of concern’ (Manners, 2002:236) and re-adjusting the focal point towards the power and concept of norms as the sizeable basics of studying the EU.

With that in mind, the concept and efficiency of NPE is to be at the forefront of many an argument during this thesis as it appears to best fit the image of the EU both in from internal and external standpoint in relation to the topic of this thesis. While NPE is undoubtedly a positive attempt of soft power to shape the global sphere in areas of politics, democracy and human rights just to name a few, this thesis is to critically assess the efficiency of NPE in its entirety with regard to when NPE is present or encouraged, and when interests, such as trade deals with Israel, which indirectly fund illegal settlements in OTs, with the ACAA being a case and point, deter EU from their goals of, ‘spreading good governance, supporting social and political reform, dealing with corruption and abuse of power, establishing rule of law and protecting human rights’ (European Security Strategy, 2003).

(8)

1.1 Methodology and Sources

To operationalise the research topic, which is to analyse the efficiency of NPE in trading policies between the EU and Israel as well as Palestine to a lesser degree, to the best extent, this section illustrates the methodology used for this thesis as well as the main categories of sources utilised. The research of this research topic relies on theory and empirical data with cases being present where the two intertwine neatly.

This thesis focuses on qualitative research evident by the literature analysis below. From a quantitative research standpoint, EU trade figures and numerous other statistics will be present throughout the thesis in areas where figures and statistics can be utilised to validate a point. However, this thesis will predominantly obtain qualitative methods of research. The use of EU publications are key materials to analysing such agreements as the ACAA or the EU-Israel Technical Agreement. From analysing the legislation of the ACAA for example, numerous clauses are apparent that are questionably lenient. Moreover, flaws also come about through the conservative wording used by the EU. With that in mind, the legislation will be critically analysed. Numerous hypotheses are to be tested in this thesis, with NPE being the common denominator. This thesis will firstly examine whether the EU as a normative power fails to operate at its full potential when acting as a mediator in conflict resolution. And secondly and rather contrastingly, the EU as a normative power succeeds in utilising its influence to alter certain approaches, regulations, standards, norms and values with closer attention on Israel and to a lesser extent, given the lack of trade agreements with Palestine, through the means of trade. Due to this, the research question this thesis aims to contribute to or answer is, how effective and influential NPE is through EUFP in the Israel-Palestinian conflict?

This thesis, as stated above will focus on three parties. Them being the EU, Israel and Palestine, with EUFP being the core component due to the illustrating of the NPE concept which is often questioned due to the Israeli settlements in the illegally controlled OTs of the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. With the EU and Israel having solid, and from an Israeli point of view in terms of the EU as a trading partner, crucial, trade relations, with Palestine in contrast having quite a lesser amount, the case study is set up to determine the efficiency of NPE as the key utilised concept of the EU with a focus also on the weight of interests over human rights

(9)

and international law given the fact that the EU is aware of the ongoing scenario in the OTs, evident by the ACAA draft recommendation by Rapporteur Vital Moreira which states that the EU has a ‘firm condemnation of Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians’ (European Parliament, 2012).

The use of official EU publications as well as EU reports, draft recommendations, bilateral meeting reports, legislation and treaties are used in a bid to further strengthen arguments and notions throughout this thesis. When examining trade relations, and to add further legitimacy to the notion that trade relations between the parties in question in this thesis is of great salience, an accurate and up-to-date compilation of statistical economic data published by the European Commission (EC) is used. Furthermore, the use of academic articles relating to the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, EU as a normative power, the perceptions of the EU in Israel and Palestine, EU and international law and parallel legal frameworks regarding trading between the three parties and a great variation of other relevant articles are evident throughout this thesis. Newspaper and online articles regarding the ACAA and the current landscape in Israel and Palestine were used to maintain awareness of the recent events in the region.

Three interviews were carried out, all of which were under Chatham house rules in their respective offices within the European Commission in Brussels with two interviewees associated with the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation and the other associated with the Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR). Due to this, the interviewees are referred to as EU Officials throughout this thesis and in compliance with the interviewees wishes, none of the interviews were recorded nor transcribed. In the interviews, the core issue of discussion was the involvement of the EU in trade and the importance of trade being a mediator in the region.

With the ACAA entering force on January 19th

2013, other than the work of Voltolini (2016), there is a lack of academic articles on the matter available and due to that, the focus of the ACAA had to rely more so on the quantitative methods of, interviews with EU officials, the ACAA legislation itself, reports, draft recommendations and noted EP meetings regarding the issue.

(10)

1.2 Outline

Following on from this section is the initial chapter, where all relevant contributions towards the conceptualisation of the EU are present. The concept of NPE is the core concept of this thesis and due to this, the concepts Manners responds to in his article, them being Civilian Power Europe (CPE) and Military Power Europe (MPE) will be analysed. After the review of NPE, a section dealing with the contributions, agreements and disagreements will follow so that each side of NPE is acknowledged and analysed.

The second chapter focuses on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict with the role the EU has played being present throughout. This chapter is of great salience as it introduces the reader to the complex history has troubled the region and still troubles the region to this day, varying from the pre-establishment of the state of Israel, to the 1967 Six-Day War which is still a core reason for the debates about land that is still present today, to then analysing the role the EU has played since the Six-Day War up until the Sharm el-Sheikh Accord in 1999. Following that, the conflict in the modern era, or more specifically, the 21st

century, where movements were made towards the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state by the EU are to be addressed. Furthermore, it analyses the role of the EU regarding the ever-debated sovereignty of Palestine, with a specific focus on the 2006 Palestinian elections and the role the EU played ensuring a fair and democratic election occurred and how the EU acted to the unexpected and problematic result of a Hamas-led government. Finally, the involvement of the EU as a mediator and a modest ‘force for good’ (Barbé and Johansson-Nogués, 2008) during the Gaza Wars are to be analysed through a normative lens.

The third chapter focuses specifically on the history of EU trade relations with Israel and Palestine, where the original trading between Israel and the then, European Economic Community (EEC) will be analysed. Furthering on, after a clear period of successful trade between the two parties, the AA a component of the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, where the founding of the EMP came about will be analysed. This AA is still a core part of EU-Israel trade with numerous additions being added to the agreement such as the EU-Israel Technical

(11)

Arrangement of 2005 which was an aggressive move by the EU to ensure that products being made in OTs, were labelled as being so.

After this analysis, EU-Palestine relations will be examined with specific focus on undoubtedly the greatest agreement to come about by both parties, that being the EC-Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) Interim Association Agreement. As well as acknowledging the positives from the Palestinian side from such an agreement, it will also assess the stranglehold of Israel on the matter of outlets being under Israeli control and therefore limits or jeopardises trade as much as possible.

Succeeding the chapter regarding EU trade relations with Israel and Palestine will be where the ACAA will be analysed through a discourse of the legislation where numerous articles are highlighted and questioned with a NPE frame of mind. Following that, the debate surrounding the ACAA will be discussed with recognition of EP questions, draft recommendations, statements and academic pieces. Furthermore, lobbying and the effectiveness of such campaigning will be acknowledged, again regarding to the passing of the ACAA.

Following on is the conclusion. Here, key points are reiterated in order to further cement the notions put forward in this thesis and the aim of answering the research topic, which is, analysing the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU as a normative power through its policies in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

(12)

2. The EU: What kind of Power?

Conceptualising the EU and the methods in which it acts and what it is has long been a well-debated subject with numerous scholars attempting to clarify the matter. This section is to outline the relevant academic work on notions of European power in a chronological order until the concept of NPE, which is the core concept used in this thesis, is reached. Following that, the debate on NPE will be further looked at through analysing the contributions and criticism from a wide array of scholars.

Civilian Power Europe

CPE was the first main concept of the EU, formed in 1972 after Duchêne noticed a change in the reliance of militarisation, which was ever-present for decades, to a more ‘civilian power’ approach where the reliance on military was eroding. The concept of CPE is largely based on the presumption that the EU should utilise civilian power as the firstly thought of approach rather than the historical approach of military power. Duchêne himself describes his concept as being, ‘long on economic power and relatively short on armed force’ (Duchêne, 1973: 19) Furthering his notion, Duchêne acknowledged the role of the EU as being of a civilian power and further strengthened his argument that the use of military was unnecessary when stating that, ‘the European community must be a force for the international diffusion of civilian and democratic standards’ (Stavridis, 2001: 6). Certain acknowledgements regarding this concept of power were present with Twichett leading by example, by stating that with no use of military might as a bargaining tool, ‘economic and legal factors’ were key to influencing other states (ibid).

Duchêne was keen to validate his notion that Europe should ‘be a force for the international diffusion of civilian and democratic standards’ and strengthen the connection and ‘interest for the poor abroad’, as well as ensuring that ‘equality, justice and tolerance’ were strengthened within Europe (Orbie, 1978: 126). Duchêne firmly believed that his concept was monumental in conceptualising the EU and in a bid to justify such a belief he stated that:

(13)

‘The European Community's interest as a civilian group of countries long on economic power and relatively short on armed force is as far as possible to domesticate relations between states, including those of its own members and those with states outside its frontiers. This means trying to bring to international problems the sense of common responsibility and structures of contractual politics which have been in the past associated exclusively with 'home' and not foreign, that is alien, affairs’ (ibid).

In hindsight, Duchêne was well ahead of his time as, examining the EU today, the use of military power is essentially non-existent given the lack of military the EU, as a collective institution has. Of course, member states have military forces and have been involved in conflicts around the world, however the image of the EU is very much one where military power is non-existent. This is present through the words of former EC President Romano Prodi, who glorified the use and impact of CPE when stating that the EU must, ‘aim to become a global civil power at the service of sustainable global development. After all, only by ensuring sustainable global development can Europe guarantee its own strategic security’ (European Commission, 2000).

CPE was the first main concept that brought the EU to the realisation that by spreading standards in areas of significant salience such as democracy with an enhanced focus on the issues of diplomacy and human rights, it would ensure that Europe could develop even further and established hope that the example of Europe could encourage other states to follow the European example of norms, values and standards. With this in mind, Duchêne displayed optimism regarding the development of Europe and even shared the notion that Europe was on course to becoming a ‘superpower in the making’ (Galtung, 1973) and then on to become a ‘post-modern superpower’ as McCormick (2006) believes.

Military Power Europe

Hedley Bull founded the concept of MPE as a follow-on from the work of Duchêne. The Oil Crisis of 1973 that led into early 1974 ended up emphasising the notion of Duchêne that influence on a global political scale was more economic based rather than military.

(14)

Interestingly, Bull, rather with suspicion, links Duchêne’s CPE to the theory of neoliberal-institutionalism that was spearheaded by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane which essentially set economic influence and interdependence as the core reasons of importance (Nye and Keohane, 1972).

In his article, ‘Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, the main point of critique Bull wishes to illustrate was that, during the time of writing, the state of affairs as he saw it was limited in periods of, ‘détente’ (Bull, 1982: 1). He particularly points to the perception of the reducing of reliance on military power within Europe. In his opinion, the lack of military power could prove to leave Europe vulnerable if major military events were to occur and as a result, he stated that ‘the power or influence exerted by the European Community and other such civilian actors was conditional upon as strategic environment provided by the military power of states, which they did not control’ (ibid: 151). When analysing the views of Bull further, it is evident that himself and Duchêne had a shared belief on the unfeasibility of the EC having such a lack of military if an attack was to occur when he stated that:

‘There is no supranational community in Western Europe but only a group of nation-states (moreover, if there were a supranational authority in Western Europe, this would be a source of weakness in defence policy rather than of strength; it is the nation-states of Western Europe - France, Germany, Britain - their capacity to inspire loyalty and to make war - that are the sources of its power)’. (Bull, 1982: 163)

Following on from that Bull further strengthens his thoughts by noting that:

‘Their history is one of endemic mutual conflict, and if they have recently acquired a habit of collaboration, this has been under the shadow of the American presence and the threat from the East. Even the idea that Western European nations constitute a ‘‘security community” or area of peace is mere wishful thinking, if it means that war between them could not happen again, and not simply that it has not happened in recent decades and would not make sense.’ (ibid)

(15)

From the points made by Bull, whilst looking at the thesis and what it entails regarding the conceptualisation of the EU, two applicable points worth conversing come about. Them being, the role of the EU in Europe, as well as the role of the EU on a global scale. This is relevant given that the role the EU has played, and still does play, in Israel regarding trade and matters of humanitarian salience. This is clear when looking at the point Duchêne makes regarding economic power as well as CPE overtaking the importance of military power and how the necessity of a military was not available due to the lack of willingness from member states. Bull would go on to further strengthen his notion on the lack of unity regarding the matter of military within member states of the EC as a collective institution and therefore, was not of the belief that supranational cooperation could inspire enough loyalty from the civilians of the European Community to result to the means of military action (Bull, 1982).

When comparing Bull and Duchêne, although Manners points out the similarities below, both authors culminate with contrasting views. While Duchêne expands on his notion that CPE is an encouraging approach regarding the reduction of salience and need for military power and increase the importance of economic cooperation and independence between member states that would essentially result in no reason to conduct war, Bull firmly believes that a form of military or the presence of the EU having some intimidation through the means of military might, would more likely influence foreign affairs.

Normative Power Europe

The work of Manners (2002) on ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’ is in response to the works on CPE, Duchêne (1973) and MPE by Bull (1982), where he argues that international practices carried out in the name of the EU do not correspond to the mainstream analytical categories of power politics and civilian power (Médéric, 2015). This is evident as Manners addresses the two scholars in the beginning of his article acknowledging that both were more inclined to emphasise the status quo of international societies rather than civil society, and due to that, references their work to the Westphalian nation-state. In another contrast of the two, Manners goes on stating that there is a flaw in the two’s notion of influence. Here, he refers to Bull being more inclined on the issue of the EU needing some form of

(16)

military power to maximise their influence, whilst Duchêne on the other hand is more adamant on civilian matters with no military action such as bargaining or cooperating through economics. Then, concluding with his comparisons of the two, Manners mentions the notion of EU interests being of ultimate significance. Using the fall of the Soviet Empire as an example to strengthen his point that the result of normative power is of more importance rather than EU interests, or to validate his notion that normative power is of more importance for the EU from a global politics perspective rather than empirical power, he claims that the Soviet Empire fell via the ‘collapse of norms rather than the power of force’ (Manners, 2002: 238).

Furthermore, in a bid to justify his claim that the EU is a normative power, he states that due to the historical element that ‘reviled the nationalisms that had led to barbarous war and genocide’ (ibid: 240), the EU wished to move on. And because of this the creation of community institutions and policies took place in a context where Europeans were committed to ‘pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty’ (ibid). Secondly, Manners refers to the constitution of the EU as being based on values and the commitment to ensuring the issues of rule of law, human rights, social justice and principles of democracy are met. Setting these issues at the top of the EU agenda, in the eyes of Manners, strengthened his notion that the EU is more than just a traditional Westphalian nation-state that thrives on personal interests. Then, Manners relates to the United Nations (UN) Charter for Human Rights which holds similar views on the preserving and promoting of values and norms. Furthermore, Manners addresses the issue of military instruments in the EU and his stance on normative power regarding them by saying:

‘I reject this assumption and the instrumentality which accompanies it – in my formulation the central component of normative power Europe is that it exists as being different to pre-existing political forms, and that this particular difference pre-disposes it to act in a normative way’ (Manners, 2002: 242).

The concept of NPE is broad and can be categorised into nine separate elements, with five being ‘core’ norms in which peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and human rights are categorised as, and four minor which entail good governance, social solidarity,

(17)

anti-discrimination and sustainable development (ibid: 242). This thesis is to specifically relate to three of the core norms, them being, democracy, rule of law and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. These three core norms relate greatly to the research question and can be used effectively to challenge the notion of just how efficient the concept of NPE is as the primary method utilised in EUFP in the region of Israel and Palestine.

In a bid to elaborate the importance of these nine norms while looking in a historical point of view Manners states that, ‘the norms of democracy, rule of law and human rights grew later when it was important to distinguish democratic western Europe from communist eastern Europe’ (ibid: 243). He continued by saying that such norms went on to become, ‘defining features of transition from communist rule in the immediate post-cold war period as the Copenhagen criteria demonstrate’ (ibid). Addressing his four minor norms, Manners states that, ‘the desire for anti-discrimination measures also arose from progressive social legislation and the concerns regarding racism and persecution of minorities in the early 1990s (ibid)’. Elaborating further he states that, the norm of sustainable development became important following the Rio Earth summit when it was included in the Treaty of Amsterdam. And in his final piece to emphasise his point, he states:

‘the norm of good governance is becoming vital in the aftermath of the resignation of the Commission in 1999, the concern for double standards in pursuing the EU’s demands for democratic reforms in the central and eastern European countries, and the recognition of the role of governance in successful aid programmes’ (ibid: 243-244).

Manners defuses his norms in six varying methods. Firstly, by ‘contagion’ (ibid: 244). By this, he is referring to the fact that values and norms are prone to diffuse unintentionally to other political actors via the EU. Secondly, ‘informational’ (ibid), where he is relating to the notion that, in areas of policy briefs and initiatives, they are a result of strategic communications which are a result of diffusion occurring. Thirdly, ‘procedural’ (ibid), whereby values and norms are adopted by other states and political actors due to their institutionalisation within their relationship with the EU. Then, Manners (ibid: 245) goes on to describe ‘transference’, a case where the diffusion of values and norms through trade and assistance to third parties which is a form of conditionality, or ‘the carrot and stickism of financial rewards economic sanctions’ (ibid) as Manners uniquely refers to it as. The two final characteristics are ‘overt diffusion’ and

(18)

‘cultural filter’. With ‘overt diffusion’ relating to the influence the EU has over third parties by being a noticeable presence and ‘cultural filter’ relating to ‘the political learning in third states and organisation leading to learning, adaption or rejection of norms. The cultural filter is based on the interplay between the construction of knowledge and the creation of social and political identity by the subjects of norm diffusion’ (ibid).

It is interesting looking at CPE and MPE in comparison to Manners’ NPE, that the main difference refers to how all authors define the EU as an influential actor by what the EU is, rather than what the EU does.

In Manners’ attempt to further differentiate between his concept and the one of Duchêne, he advocates that CPE uses norms, values and ‘civil means’ to serve EU interests through a Eurocentric outlook whilst, NPE defines certain values and norms and their exportability as universal and more altruistic. Manners enhances his desire to further contrast the two by claiming that the EU has a political influence due to, what it is, rather than what it does (ibid). With that in mind, it is clear that the EU attempts to shape the schemes of other states that they regard as normal through the use of spreading norms, values and standards, especially within their ‘near-abroad’ (Börzel, 2011).

NPE from a Critical Perspective

NPE has been a well debated concept on the methods in which the EU can be conceptualised with numerous scholars attributing to the debate, by either agreeing, contributing or disagreeing with Manners’ 2002 article with the contributions of Lucarelli (2004) being a good introductory example to introduce the section as she claims that the EU comes across as a normative power purely due to the stark contrast present when comparing the EU approach with the hard power approach of the United States (US). This section is to acknowledge and examine the works of others regarding NPE where the concept of NPE has been criticised, debated or contributed to.

(19)

proceed from the assumptions that inform most of the literature on this topic. Although Manners has warned against decoupling interests from norms, the notion of social constructivism whereby the concept of normative power executes the norms against interest argument. With a dichotomy like this, a more thorough understanding of how NPE works in practice is difficult. Furthering from that, such a dichotomy subdues serious empirical questions such as the that of ‘actors interests in circulation norms in the name of the EU’ (Médéric, 2015: 1285-1286). Médéric uses the structural constructivism approach utilised by Pierre Bourdieu to empower the investigation where the outcome illustrates that the battle between norms against interests are ‘divided by anchoring both concepts in social fields’ (ibid: 1286). Médéric goes on to elaborate that the approach of Bourdieu clears the path for an escape route out of the dead end where the ‘exclusive ontology’’ of social constructivism has entrapped research on the notion of NPE (Kauppi, 2010).

Relating NPE to EUFP

The work of Federica Bicchi in 2005 where she attempts to take the concept of NPE and refer it to the foreign policy of the EU is undoubtedly worth reviewing, as she works extensively to come to a decision whether the EU is a normative actor as Manners suggests. In her article, Bicchi acknowledges the work of Manners stating that, ‘the debate has acquired substantial momentum thanks to arguments put forward by Manners, according to which the EU can be conceptualised as a ‘normative power’’(Bicchi, 2005: 201). She continues by clarifying the stance of Manners on the matter by commenting that, in his view, ‘the EU is normatively different and promotes ‘universal norms and principles in its relations with non-members’ (ibid) which is exactly what this thesis relates to. A key issue in which Bicchi wishes to investigate is the ‘inclusiveness’ of NPE and she elaborates on that by mentioned that investigating the inclusiveness of NPE is ‘crucial to evaluate the normative connotation of EFP.’ (ibid: 204). She continues by acknowledging that, ‘according to Manners (2002) and, from a different perspective, Sjursen (2006), the normative value of Europe’s power rests on the universal character of the principles it promotes’ (Bicchi, 2005: 204). She acknowledges that, ‘more specifically, the EU behaves normatively when it promotes values that empower actors by EUFP. Normative power is, as any form of power, relational and in order to be

(20)

normatively justifiable, it must give a voice to people outside of the EU’ (ibid). As Bicchi has acknowledge the work of Manners, she then goes on to elaborate where her work is to go by stating that there is a ‘thin line between ‘giving voice to’ and ‘speaking for’. Given the EU’s tendency to be Eurocentric, the normative meaning of Europe’s action is therefore to be assessed against its capacity to give non-members a role in EFP’ (ibid: 205).

Analysing this, her main quest is evidently to establish an opinion on whether actors outside the EU are associated with the implementation of EU policy. Along with ‘inclusiveness, ‘reflexivity’ is a point Bicchi also wishes to address. Here, she defines the term as whether the EU acts on the foundation of non-reflexive routine based behaviour or reflexive rational behaviour. Regarding the term of reflexivity, she states that:

‘Reflexivity is thus expressed by the possibility of redemption through context specific knowledge and action based thereon. Routine-based behaviour is, on the contrary, founded on practices that have lost their original meaning (if they ever had one) to become ritualised and symbolic. While behaviour can still be seen as intentional, it is ‘not willful’’ (ibid: 205-206).

When it comes to both inclusiveness and reflexivity in EUFP, Bicchi (2005) acknowledges both can seen as being products of rationalist calculation that promote certain norms and values due to the benefits it exerts for interest of the EU or they can be seen as being constructivist given the fact that, both promote certain norms and values and act in a certain routine-based method. Delving deeper, it appears that the EU can act normatively by both inclusivity and reflexivity with the actors it aims to influence in areas of policy-making for example.

The key point Bicchi wishes to illustrate regarding the EU as a normative power, is that whether deliberately or not, the EU has the influence to use a range of their values and norms towards other actors with their own interests at the core of the process, which then allows the EU to utilise inclusiveness when it is of reward to them regarding their interests. In essence, the EU can be displayed as a normative power, yet rather Eurocentric when the desired interest-driven norm is not carried out correctly.

(21)

Ethical Power Europe Contribution

Aggestam contributed to the concept of NPE by formulating the concept of Ethical Power Europe (EPE), where she built on numerous factors involved in NPE. However, in contrast to NPE she expresses how the EU, as a force for good, is on a proactive mission and wishes to build upon the concept of NPE by contributing a different perspective, where the EU wishes to take a more proactive role on as a global influencer (Aggestam, 2008). Aggestam goes on to express that this is a conceptual shift from the original role of the EU, going from, ‘what it ‘is’, to what it ‘does’: from representing a power of attractiveness to a proactive role of speaking and acting on its vision of and for the global common good’ (ibid: 1). Then, she goes on to argue that the EU is utilising the likes of military and civilian means to influence others and to spread their vision, and with that, ‘stepping out of its ‘post-modern’ paradise to bring its message of peace and justice to the ‘modern’ and ‘pre-modern’ worlds’ (ibid: 2).

In a bid to solidify her belief that EPE in the modern era of today is relevant and would be a successful concept, Aggestam gives five reasons. Firstly, ‘EPE aims to problematize the power of the EU by focussing on the agency involved-moving from its institutional make-up (what it ‘is’) to its behaviour (what it ‘does’)’ (ibid: 3). Secondly, it seeks to move beyond the concepts of CPE and MPE in order to look further into the ethical considerations of choosing either, or both, when it comes to the utilisation of power. Thirdly, it aims to make headway towards the internal description of NPE and move to the external demonstration of EPE as the concept taken by the EU. Fourthly, EPE pursues to include numerous connotations of how influential Europe can be and employs other key global actors for comparability. The final reason relates to how EPE aims to bring national agendas into consideration and how national interests can be influential in EU policy. She concludes her final reason by recognising that with EPE, ‘material interests and ethical considerations tend to be closely intertwined and that the EU therefore is likely to have mixed motivations’ (ibid: 4).

Towards the end of Aggestam’s article, she furthers her argument by claiming that ethics are regularly up for contestation and the conceptions the EU has for what is good is constantly

(22)

questioned by actors outside of Europe. She also states that the EU is guilty of having mixed motives, some of which are ethical-based and some interest-based, which is a highly relevant notion throughout this thesis with specific focus on the EU and Israel and the repercussions for those in OTs. In her view, the EU can only conduct itself in three ways. Firstly, she maintains that the EU can act as being driven by selfless anxieties regarding the welfare of others and with that in mind, it assumes that the spreading of certain values and norms through civilian means is uncontested when done via civilian means. Secondly, the opposite view can be taken, whereby the EU spreading specific norms and values to further its own interests, with the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) being the used and relevant example since the ENP was a motion to bring stability to neighbouring nations among other objectives. Thirdly and the final method in which the EU can conduct itself, relates to the EU coming across ethically in terms of what it does instead of what its collective goals are. In other words, the EU does not look to enhance their goals by any method deemed required, but instead they take ethics into consideration when it comes to the implementation of its interests.

In her concluding remarks, Aggestam states that the EU does not attribute to any of these three ways in which the EU could conduct itself. She does note that the leniency of the EU in terms of their capacity of reflexivity is key with a specific relation to the thoughts and perceptions of other actors as being essential.

Democracy Promotion through NPE

Following the work of Bicchi which contributes to the concept of NPE, Pace et al., (2009) also contribute towards the argument with a specific focus on democracy promotion in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region which is of great relevance given that this thesis is to focus on the MENA region states of Israel and Palestine. In their article, they take note that the literature regarding the promotion of democracy with liberal market-capitalist guidelines and good governance being their core issue, are essential for institutional stability is being assumed which in their eyes, is not that simple to just assume to be the case, thus, Pace et al. look at the

(23)

outlook of actors in which the EU attempt to influence and argue that such actors aim to adjust the definitions that are associated with the EU regarding the viability of democracy promotion.

When it comes to the aims of democracy promotion, the authors take a rather realist approach towards certain components of the EU on the matter by stating that the, ‘western-style democracy is pursued as an objective partly because of its presumed beneficial international repercussions, associated with ‘democratic peace theory’’ (Pace et al., 2009: 6), a theory which presumes that democracies are reluctant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies (Doyle, 1983). The authors continue by saying that they ‘could hypothesise that the EU promotes democracy with vigour in the MENA region because it believes it to be crucial to international stability and security.’ (Pace et al., 2009: 6). With that in mind they finalise their notion by stating that this, ‘would seem to point to an understanding of the EU as a rationalist and realist actor rather than a normative one’ (ibid).

Nevertheless, the authors proclaim that the way in which the EU acts when serving such interests does illustrate the normativity of the institution. This is evident when they claim that, ‘they are normative because any policy that aims to embed Western-style democracy can be justified as one defending freedom and democracy (the Algeria case is quite paradigmatic in this respect).’ Furthermore, they elaborate by noting that: ‘the policies, however, are also realist because in the EU’s conceptualisation of stability, only Western-style liberal democracy can create a stable and friendly environment where Western material interests can be pursued’ (ibid: 7).

Pace et al (ibid), bring an end to their piece by claiming the EU, in terms of normative principles of democracy, has a deficient understanding of each state in the MENA region and by ostracising this issue, yet still cooperating with the national governments of these states run the risk of coming across somewhat hypocritical and tarnishing their image of being a normative power.

(24)

NPE as an interest-driven concept

In a separate article written solely by Pace (2009), Pace again refers to Manners’ concept of NPE and the promotion of democracy in the MENA region. On this occasion, she expresses the identity of the EU as ‘Mediterranean condition’. By this she is relating to the events in the 1990s where the influence of radical Islam was growing and in retaliation, the EU established the EMP, and in addition began signing AAs with numerous MENA region states with the Israel being an appropriate case. When analysing the AA with Israel for example, the way in which the dialogue is written is cautious and comes across as if the primary issue the EU wished to tackle was ensuring higher standards, more in-line with EU standards on human rights, democracy, rule of law was to be complied with. Also, seeing as the EU was aware of the growing threat of radical Islam, ensuring conflicts did not escalate was also of great salience.

Pace then goes on to refer to the ENP which has similar objectives to the ones of the Barcelona Declaration which led to the signing of many MENA region AAs. In her article, she emphasises that notion by stating that, ‘on paper, ENP’s Action Plans make up the declared ‘common’ values and interests ‘shared’ between EU member states and their neighbours.’ (ibid: 42). Continuing and strengthening the point of the ENP having similar objectives to the ones of the Barcelona Declaration:

‘the principles of democracy, human rights, rule of law, market economy, sustainable development, stability, security, prosperity, joint response to common challenges (border management, prosperity, gaps, crime, environment, health, terrorism, etc.) have been further institutionalised through the 2003 (ENP) instrument’ (ibid)

In her piece, it is evident that she acknowledges that the policy looks well when seen in a hard copy yet she is reluctant to believe that in practice, the policy is feasible nor realistic. As the article continues, Pace concludes by suggesting that the EU is more focussed on their own interests in the areas of economics and security as opposed to promoting democracy and spreading norms thus, is lacking in terms of a more stable policy with a greater time expectation on the issue in the MENA region which is a notion that relates greatly to this thesis. Furthering on from that notion, Pace believes that due to the vulnerability of the MENA region regarding

(25)

conflict, the EU are rather reluctant to initiate further reformative policies in the area of democracy promotion. It’s a simple case of high risk, low reward and with that in mind, the rewards of the high politics involved in creating such policies is questionable.

Post-Structuralist Approach

Keeping with the work of Pace as well as acknowledging the work of Thomas Diez, both of whom have numerous articles on the matter both individually as well as together. While taking a more post-structuralist approach towards the notion of NPE, they correlated an article on the issue of how the productiveness of conflict transformation can be depicted as illustrating the EU in its ideal normative power image. Shortly into their piece, they lay the foundations for their article by stating that the EU can spread its norms due to it being a hegemon following the ‘Foucauldian understanding of power’ (Diez & Pace, 2007: 211) where the reader is reminded that, in the eyes of Foucault, power is first and foremost a ‘productive force’ (Foucault, 1981: 73). This is interesting, as by saying this, they acknowledge the EU is a success as a normative power but, on the contrary, they are saying that, although the EU are spreading norms, the EU is not a normative power but one related to a hegemon, a notion that Haukkala (2011) also believes by describing the EU as a regional normative power hegemon. Diez and Pace went on afterwards to state that ‘NPE is, first and foremost a discourse in which EU actors themselves construct themselves as ‘model citizens’’ (Diez & Pace, 2007: 211).

Towards the end of their piece, they add that the influence of the EU to its neighbours and ‘near abroad’ (Börzel, 2011) regarding NPE can be shelved due to their own desire of coming across in the best way possible. In simple terms, they worry that the EU preoccupied focussing on their image as a normative power therefore do not use their potential productiveness to their best ability.

Realist Critique

Until now, many of the analysed literature contributes towards the concept of NPE rather than criticising it deeply. Adrian Hyde-Price published an article in 2006 called “Normative’ power

(26)

Europe: a realist critique’ where, as evident in the name of the article, he criticises the notion of NPE from looking at EUFP through a realist perspective, which as a result, introduced three key issues that would dispute the influence of, primarily NPE, but also CPE to an extent, ideas he describes as being ‘liberal-idealist approaches’ (Hyde-Price, 2006: 218). Firstly, Hyde-Price states that such concepts are reductionist. By this he refers to Walt (1979) who labels the notion of being reductionist, in that they aim to ‘explain international outcomes through elements and combinations of elements located at national or subnational levels’ (ibid: 60). For his second issue, he again refers to the work of others to validate his point. Here, Hyde-Price (2006: 218) states that the concepts of NPE and CPE to an extent ‘suffer from liberal-idealism’s perennial weakness, namely ‘the almost total neglect of power’. He uses the words of Bull (1982) to emphasise that statement by referencing the fact that Bull had noted that CPE was a contradiction in terms because ‘the power of influence exerted by the European Community and other such civilian actors was conditional upon a strategic environment provided by the military power of states, which they do not control’ (Bull, 1982: 151). The third issue Hyde-Price takes with the influence of NPE is that the NPE approach is ‘explicitly normative’ (Hyde-Price, 2006: 18) in the manner in which normative and civilian power is regarded as a ‘good thing’. His issue with this is that, ‘when the object of the study is seen as embodying the core values one believes in, it is difficult to achieve any critical distance’ (ibid).

Hyde-Price continues by highlighting some key tenets of neorealism where his core assumptions are that the international system is anarchic, that states are the primary international actors, states are functionally similar, and that states are rational and unitary actors. He continues by mentioning propositions such as milieu shaping and second-order concerns. In his view, milieu shaping relates to regional governance tasks which are more probable to be undertaken by the larger member states due to greater weight of their say regarding stability within the EU and because they have the competence to deal with such unique responsibilities. Second-order concerns can be closely linked to NPE as Hyde-Price states that ethical and normative thoughts can be categorised under this proposition. He maintains that by the EU promoting second-order interests, it contributes to the assumption of the EU being a normative power as it keeps member states in correlation regarding core interests. However, on the contrary, Hyde Price (2006) claims that when certain salient issues

(27)

arise, security interests overpower second-order interests and relates to the economic relations with Putin’s Russia or the sale of arms to China as an example.

Hyde-Price makes a strong case during his piece where he proclaims that the EU can focus on security governance and therefore ‘soft power’ due to, primarily the US and NATO to a lesser degree, being the key international actors who are comfortable using hard power, who help others in terms of security. With hard power not being exercised by the EU attempting to come across form its appearance as an actor utilising their influence as a normative or soft power actor, member states tend to utilise the EU for economic interests as Hyde-Price points out by stating that, ‘the EU serves as an instrument of collective hegemony, shaping its external milieu through using power in a variety of forms: political partnership or ostracism; economic carrots and sticks’, the promise of membership or the threat of exclusion’ (ibid: 227). Furthermore, he states that, ‘the EU acts a ‘civilising power’ only in the sense that it is used by its most powerful member states to impose their common values and norms on the post-communist East’ (ibid).

Europe as an Empire

Following on from the criticism presented by Hyde-Price, further criticism of the concept of NPE is present through the work of Jan Zielonka which deserves to be mentioned. Zielonka (2008) claims that Europe does not act like a normative actor but rather an imperial actor. In his piece, he claims that the reason for the EU spreading their norms and values is so that the EU would gain more autonomy over the willing states to adapt to such norms and values. Historically, military has always been associated with an empire, an association Zielonka acknowledges and addresses. He argues that, using the economic might of the EU with the use of sanctions and conditionality being two fitting examples, the EU can still influence others. Zielonka (ibid) also believes that the EU should attempt to expand on their current notion of norms, values and good governance in a bid to encourage the other actors to be legitimately normative and that the undertaking of European norms from actors outside the EU through forms of imperial influencing such as sanctions and acts of conditionality, questions the legitimacy of NPE.

(28)

2.1 Theoretical Background

In this section, the theoretical background that will elaborate my understanding as well as guide my research on the efficiency of NPE as the core concept used by the EU regarding EUFP with Israel and Palestine to an extent will be displayed.

Whilst acknowledging the critiques of NPE as well as the EU in general, it is important to acknowledge the positivity the EU has spread, predominantly via normative power, to partners of the ENP in its ‘near-abroad’ (Börzel, 2011) with Israel being a case in point.

This thesis runs by the assumption that, in the case of the mistreatment of the people of Palestine by Israel, the weight the EU puts on gaining, in this case, via trade and therefore financially, is greater than maintaining their stance as an institution of spreading norms when it comes to political gaining via interests. Moreover, the theory of the EU as an influential and cogent normative power will be expanded through multiple hypotheses. Firstly, that the EU as a normative power fails to operate at its full potential when the EU acts as a mediator in conflict resolution. And secondly and rather contrastingly, the EU as a normative power triumphs in exporting their norms and values through trade agreements and foreign policies.

Elaborating further, the assumption can be spun in another light to give the EU the image of being contradictory or, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated to be the case, utilising ‘double standards’ (Konecny, 2016) towards Israel yet more so towards Palestine. This is present when acknowledging Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) which states that the Union is, ‘founded on the values of respect for human rights, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities’ (TEU, 2012: 17).

Furthermore, and perhaps in the broader scheme of things, in a bid to question the efficiency and effectiveness of NPE and the policies of the EU, this thesis will accept NPE as being the most competent conceptualisation of the EU yet will examine three of Manners’ five core norms, as mentioned above in greater focus, with them being, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms being capable to attest, with an interest

(29)

again towards the Middle East, specifically, Israel and Palestine. Although the signing of the AA between the EU and Israel in 1995 that entered force in 2000 (European External Action Service, 2016) and the ACAA signal that NPE is still alive and well as it effectively brought Israel in line with EU methods and standards, this thesis will evaluate the perceptions of the EU with a greater emphasis on the perception in Israel and in correlation with the findings, the efficiency of NPE as well as the overall effectiveness will be questioned.

(30)

3. Role of the EU in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

This section will evaluate the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in three areas. Firstly, a brief overview of the major events that occurred followed by the Six-Day War of 1967 which, to this day, has implications regarding recognition of the boundaries of the state of Israel and issues regarding OTs therefore, a key event when examining the role of the EU in later years. Finally, this section will assess the conflict in the 21st_{century. All the sections are to be} approached with one eye focussing on EU involvement from a NPE perspective during these monumental moments in the history of both Palestine and Israel. By doing so in this manner, it provides background yet necessary information that will be useful and relevant regarding issues in areas such trade through AAs and the general promotion of stability through the EU spreading their norms. In other words, when discussing more modern issues later in the thesis, such as the ACAA or EU trade relations with Israel and Palestine, the background historical knowledge taken from this piece will help greatly in understanding the issues that face the EU as both a trading partner, and as an influential international actor who wish to spread the normative values and practices to their neighbours and its ‘near-abroad’ (Börzel, 2011).

3.1 Brief Overview

Currently, 137 of 193, or precisely 70.9% of UN member states, formally recognise the State of Palestine with numerous other larger international actors such as France, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK) looking likely to follow suit as they await government approval (Al Jazeera, 2017). Since the 1970s, the EU has recognised the easing in conflict between Israel and Palestine as a key European interest with numerous attempts to mediate for not just the broader scale of stability in the area but also for the sake of EU interests regarding trade and bilateral relations (Hollis, 1997) (Peters, 1999).

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can come across a major example of the salience of borders and territorial conflicts in a time where globalisation is continuing to become more common, and

(31)

is therefore a case that goes against many of the ‘border-less world’ and ‘deterritorialisation’ narratives of recent years (Newman 2006). The history surrounding the conflict between Israel and Palestine relates to political homeland and mythical territory, an ideology that constitutes a central part of both parties national identity, and are a key factor regarding how the Israelis and Palestinians formulate their territorial discourses and respective borders (Newman, 2002).

European member states have always been involved in the Middle-East, through direct or indirect means. The Israeli–Palestinian region conflict has witnessed continuous alternative landscapes during the twentieth century and is no different to European member state involvement, dating back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, a single paragraph arose through the coinciding of the aims of the British empire with Zionist aspirations which grew in salience during the first World War where Britain was in war against the central powers which consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Ottoman Turkey (Hiro, 2003). The declaration applied to Palestine who lacked political and geographical existence with defined borders, which stated the British were in favour of, and pledged the support to, the ‘establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people’ (Balfour, 1917) and that the British would ‘use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object’ (ibid) by safeguarding ‘the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities’ and ‘the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country’ (Gelvin, 2014).

Succeeding the Balfour Declaration came the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, which then led to the first partition of the region and the creation of the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan in 1921 by the British Mandate. One of the moments that carried the largest tremor of impact ought to have been the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1947–9. This event saw the beginning of the geographical conflict that can still be seen today with the territorial expansion by Israel during the Six-Day War in June 1967 and territorial contraction due to the Israel-Egypt peace agreement of 1979 following suit. The EU-led Oslo Peace Accords of 1993 and the transfer of territory by Israel to the Palestinian Authority (PA), as well as the ongoing attempts to reach a final peace agreement between the two sides, intended to result in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state yet, in hindsight, the

(32)

conclusive agreement brought about further territorial change. Despite the EU approaching the process of the Oslo Accords with the main objective of the realisation of Palestinian self-determination, the PLO was more focussed on prioritising their institutional survival whilst Israel were aiming to enhance legitimacy over their occupational regime (Beck, 2017). Bearing in mind the contrasting objectives, a conclusive agreement benefiting all parties involved to the fullest degree, especially given the fact that Israel were hoping to justify the OTs, was not plausible.

The history of pre-state Palestine is full of territorial and border disputes and alterations, with the most significant of which being the replacement of the Ottoman Empire with the French and British Mandates. The simple territorial configuration of Palestine as a modern political entity began its initial formulation, of which there were many to follow, during this shift of power, from the hard power of the Ottoman Empire to the soft power French and British Mandates in comparison to their predecessor.

The northern border of what are now acknowledged to be the states of Syria, Lebanon and Israel was separated between the French and British Mandate powers, with the Palestinian boundary to the east being drawn up and finalised after the decision of the British to create the State of Trans-Jordan in 1921 (Sicker, 1999). This shift of power as well as geographical change, resulted in the effective divide of the border along the Jordan Valley, while the border between Palestine and the Sinai Peninsula was also resolved at the same time, which would go on to lay the foundations for territorial negotiations between Israel and Egypt that were to occur sixty years later. The other significant event involving the disputed territory of Palestine prior to the recognised independence of the state of Israel in 1948, was the growing discussion regarding the partition of the part of Palestine, west of the River Jordan, into two political entities, one being Jewish and one Arab. Various British Royal Commissions, with the Peel and Woodhead Commissions of the 1930s being a fitting example, recommended maps of territorial partition, as did further commissions which were established following the conclusion of World War II (Galnoor, 1994).

(33)

Looking at these proposals, it is evident that the reality in Palestine, where a changing demographic was consistent, the British government were failing in their bid to maintain not just geographical, but also societal stability. Due to this, they relinquished their mandate for Palestine and conceded their power to the UN. The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) partition proposal, was expectedly neutral, favouring a Jewish state, an Arab state and an internationalised Jerusalem which was approved by the UN General Assembly in November 1947. The following May was to be a salient time for the founding of Israel where David Ben Guiron, the first Israeli Prime Minister read a ‘declaration of independence’ which proclaimed the existence of a Jewish state called Israel with immediate effect as of May 15th

at precisely midnight. (Benson, 1997). The importance of the time was that the British Mandate for Palestine officially ended at midnight on the same day and as it ended, the state of Israel was immediately established. Very quickly after Guiron announced the declaration of independence, the US under the presidency of Harry Truman recognised Israel on a de facto basis in a very short statement that read that, ‘this government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaim in Palestine, and in recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognises the provisional government as the ‘de facto authority of the State of Israel’ (University of Missouri, 2017).

The boundary that separated Israel from the West Bank, named as the ‘green line’, came to light during talks between Israeli and Jordan representatives on the isle of Rhodes during the 1949 Armistice Agreement and was soon implemented as the border between Israeli and Jordanian administered territories. The Armistice Agreement came about, “with a view to promoting the return of permanent peace in Palestine and in recognition of the importance in this regard of mutual assurances concerning the future military operations of the Parties…” (Yale, 2008). Assessing the first article of the agreement, which sets out the core aims with Article 1.2 being a fine example which states, “No aggressive action by the armed forces-land, sea, or air-of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term planned in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practiced in military organisations” (ibid), it is clear to see that signing of the article was quite a monumental accomplishment given the fact that, on a global scale, instability was still at large during the early post-war era years. Article 1 continues to implement the greatest or most clear intentions with Article 1.2 relating

Normative power Europe? : EU’s policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Normative Power Europe? EU’s policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Table of Contents