From Wikimedia Commons
As tensions between Israel and Hamas reached their limits during the month of November, narrowly avoiding a full-fledged ground invasion of the Gaza strip, the international community has once again been asked to step in and mediate peace talks between the two governments. With America and Egypt taking the lead, a shaky cease-fire is now underway and a temporary calm has been temporarily restored to the region. These recent hostilities allow us, once again, to see the way in which the international community feels about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The last time the world decisively addressed the mounting tensions between Israel and Palestine was perhaps in 2010, when, on May 31, the ill-named “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” attempted to bypass the Israeli naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. When the Israeli military sought to force the flotilla through Israeli checkpoints, skirmishes broke out between the passengers on board and the officers of Shayetet 13, Israel’s naval commando unit. Nine members of the flotilla were killed during the clash, and the world weighed in.
British Prime Minister David Cameron called the raid “completely unacceptable,” and added, “we should do everything we can through the UN, where Resolution 1860 is absolutely clear about the need to end the blockade and to open up Gaza.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the Israeli blockade and the use of lethal force in its enforcement, and Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, said, “nothing can justify the violence.” Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief reaffirmed, “the European Union’s position regarding Gaza – the continued policy of closure is unacceptable and politically counterproductive.”
All of the commentary was essentially the same: hesitant condemnation of Israeli force and notable silence on any of the issues that necessitated it. Many European leaders and officials spoke about the use of firearms and the pragmatism of flotillas, but none addressed the real issues: borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the questions of Palestinian refugees.
Two years later, most of the commentary coming from Europe is of the same variety, and perhaps even more devoid of meaningful content. This time around, Catherine Ashton didn’t fully “condemn” the use of violence but instead expressed her “concern,” adding as a banal formality, “it is only through resumed negotiations that the legitimate aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis will be met, through a two-state solution.” In an increasingly feeble dependence on American diplomacy, David Cameron suggested that Britain do everything in its power to persuade American President Barack Obama to make a long-lasting peace plan a priority during his second term. After peace talks were already underway, the French Foreign Minister blamed Iran for the conflict.
The European response to the so-called Freedom Flotilla was retroactive rhetoric mixed with little to no action. The European response to the recent conflicts in Gaza have been even more tepid rhetoric combined with even less action. It seems that the Europeans are committed to the concept of a viable two-state solution but are unwilling to do anything to catalyze or encourage it, save offering disinterested commentary on the incidents that warrant international attention.
This raises the even more pressing question of why European foreign policy seems predominantly devoted to attempting to aim or direct American interest one way or the other. When it comes to Israel, the European leadership may criticize the use of force or bemoan the lack of peace, but they should realize the larger issue at hand for them personally: that European leadership has become effete and listless, relegated to a set of ideas of which they hope to convince their American counterparts, who may actually do something about it.
