Charlemagne: A grudge match

Date: 11/01/03

Why are Israelis and Europeans getting on so badly?

IN THE aftermath of the latest suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. European leaders issued the usual denunciations of terror. Speaking for the European Commission in Brussels, Chris Patten called the attacks “appalling and wicked”. Similar sentiments were expressed in London, Paris and Berlin. Yet, somehow, within a few hours, these expressions of sympathy had given way to a rancorous dispute between the Israelis and the Europeans. The immediate cause was the decision by Israel's government to respond to the bombs by refusing to let members of the Palestinian Authority, an embryonic self-governing body in the area under Israel's control, travel to London for a conference run by Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair. Though the British staunchly support America over Iraq, they have always been careful to stress that, unlike the Americans, they see an urgent renewed effort to settle the Palestinian problem as integral to the war against terror. Mr Blair sincerely believes this. But it is also politically important for him to show Britons - and any remaining Arab allies - that Britain is not simply America's poodle and is as willing to promote peace in Palestine as to wage war in Iraq.

The British were distinctly peeved by Israel's decision to cancel the invitations to the Palestinians to come to Mr Blair's party. Details of a bad-tempered exchange between Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, and Benjamin Netanyahu, his Israeli counterpart, swiftly leaked. Menzies Campbell, foreign-affairs spokesman for Britain's Liberal Democrats, gave a fair summary of received liberal wisdom in Europe when he commented that the Israeli ban was “wholly misguided and unnecessarily provocative. The lesson that will once again be drawn in Middle East capitals is that Israel, so long as it has the tacit support of the United States, can simply do what it likes.” Israeli diplomats respond that such reactions are not just unfair but also dangerous. “Terrorists murder people in Tel Aviv”, says one, “and within a few hours a huge row has broken out between Israel and Europe. That must be rather encouraging to the terrorists.”

The row between the British and the Israelis fits a pattern. Just as it is axiomatic for most Arabs and Palestinians that the United States is irredeemably biased against them, so many Israelis now regard European policy in the same light. Mr Netanyahu routinely accuses the Europeans of coddling terrorists. More surprising is the bitterness about European attitudes now expressed by Israelis on the left as on the right - witness a recent conference on Israeli-European relations in Berlin. One participant, Shlomo Avineri, who until recently ran an institute for European studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, accuses the Europeans of double standards. Israelis, he says, are attacked for human-rights abuses, while the persecution of dissidents in Arab countries goes virtually unreported. Opinion polls certainly show that most Europeans hold Israel in low regard. A recent survey by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, in which American and European respondents were asked to rate their feelings towards countries on a scale of one to 100, found that Americans gave Israel an average of 55, while Europeans gave it only 38 - not that much more than Iraq, which got 25.

A popular Israeli (and American neo-conservative) explanation is that “the continent of the Holocaust” is still gripped by anti-Semitism. It is true there has been a rise in attacks on synagogues in Europe over the past year, but almost all of these were perpetrated by militant young Muslim immigrants. For the average European diplomat or journalist, expressing anti-Semitic sentiment is about as socially acceptable as spitting on the boss's carpet. The real reason for the clashes between Europeans and Israelis lies elsewhere. The mainstream European assumption, expressed both in the press and in diplomacy, is that the source of the Middle East problem is an injustice done to the Palestinians, starting with the creation of refugees in 1948, continuing with the occupation of territories in 1967 and now exacerbated by Israel's settlements in the West Bank and by the violent suppression of the Palestinian uprising.

But most Israelis - at least to judge by the leaders they elect - reject the argument that all they have to do to secure peace is to agree to a Palestinian state. They believe that “land for peace” was offered to the Palestinians at the Camp David talks sponsored by President Bill Clinton - and was rejected in favour of terrorism. By pressing Israel to make concessions now, they argue, the Europeans are rewarding terror and endangering Israel.

As bleak as it gets

Does the growing gulf between Israelis and Europeans spike European ambitions to be peacemakers? Not necessarily. One popular line of argument is that peace might arise if the Americans squeeze the Israelis and the Europeans “deliver” the Palestinians. Just before Christmas, the Europeans and Americans (along with the Russians and the UN) agreed on a still unpublished “road map” for peace, which foresees the establishment of a Palestinian state within three years. Formally speaking, at least, the Europeans and Americans agree on the way ahead. European diplomats note that the last big effort to secure a Middle East peace took place after the first Gulf war. Perhaps a second defeat of Saddam Hussein might herald a new joint European-American push for peace?

Alas, that is far too blithe. Since Yasser Arafat himself seems unable or unwilling to effect a unified Palestinian commitment to peace, it seems implausible that European diplomats might achieve it. For their part, American officials argue that the Europeans overestimate the United States' ability to deliver Israel. In truth, these grim realities are acknowledged by some of Europe's top policymakers in the Middle East. One Brussels-based diplomat says he began the new year by sitting down to write a paper on “prospects for peace in 2003”. After struggling in vain for an hour, he decided to do something more useful.

Commentary feature. Why are Israelis and Europeans getting on so badly?