Israel’s army recent operation in Gaza “certainly has not destroyed Hamas, it might even have the opposite effect of making Hamas stronger in the longer term,” asserted British Liberal Democrat MEP Graham Watson during a debate in the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee.
Several MEPs criticized Israel for its part in the Gaza escalation that was concluded with a ceasefire last week, insisting “there is no justification whatsoever for the massive bombardment that has gone on”.
Watson, who is known for his anti-Israel stance, criticised Israel’s “nighttime bombardment” of the Gaza Strip for “frankly putting the 1.7 million who live in that already wretched and crowded place in fear of their lives”.
Describing the apparent gulf between US and EU policy regarding Israeli policy in Gaza, he outlined “this rather anomalous situation of the IDF using US-supplied weapons to destroy Palestinian infrastructure paid for by the European taxpayer”, a situation he said that in any other circumstances would be characterised as “a proxy war between America and the EU”.
Tensions between emerging Arab Spring democracies and Israel would only serve to hurt the EU, he declared, in light of its attempts to re-establish strong links with rising powers such as Egypt, as he charged that “our apparent support for Israel and lack of apparent support for a rapid solution is going to make it more and more difficult for us to establish the kind of relationships with these countries that we will need”.
The Palestinian Authority (PA)’s upcoming bid for non-member observer status at the UN General Assembly on Thursday dominated the discussion at the committee meeting, with general analysis predicting that despite the conclusions issued at last week’s European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg expressing support for the bid as a means to restarting the peace process, there is unlikely to be a consensus position in the vote by individual EU member states.
Committee chairman, German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok, expressed little optimism for a consensus position in his opening remarks, as he charged that a common position should be guaranteed in the context of the Middle East Quartet, of the US, the UN the EU and Russia, for which former British Premier Tony Blair acts as envoy, as he charged that the quartet can no longer be considered “a credible force for peace, looking at it from the angle of the various protagonists in the region”.
His comments were seized on by subsequent speakers, as Spanish Christian Democrat MEP Jose Ignacio Salafranca Sanchez-Neyra said that in light of the US and Egypt-brokered ceasefire last week, the EU “still hasn’t achieved a degree of political leverage and influence that we should have and that we deserve” on the international stage, despite contributing heavily in humanitarian aid and finances.
Asking how the EU could effectively play its role “not just as the paymaster institution, but also one that has to use its financial and economic weight politically”, he asked a representative of the European Union External Action Service, in lieu of the absent foreign policy chief Catherin Ashton “what is she doing, not just to recover the leadership that we haven’t yet had in line with our ambitions, but also what’s she doing to achieve a common position on the PA statehood bid at the UN, if we really want the support of moderates there”.
Responding, Gabricci admitted that the EU had had little impact on final ceasefire negotiations, as he said it was “regrettable that Europe didn’t play a more prominent role. However, he insisted that the EU had done all it could “given the circumstances”.
Highlighting positive developments in light of the post-ceasefire opening of the Gaza border crossing, he said that as the European External Action Service has no vote of its own at the UN General Assembly, it was dependent on individual EU member states to fall into some sort of consensus, as he insisted Ashton had consistently made effort to “emphasise the need for coordination between the parties about how to arrive at a common stance, because plainly the vote would show what Europe could contribute and, clearly it was going to be less if we were divided”.
Portuguese Socialist Democrat Ana Gomes, a fierce critic of Israeli settlement policy, described Gaza as “an open-air prison” and contended that Israeli actions in the territory had done little to improve its security.
Contending the EU must play its own role irrespective of the American position, particularly regarding US opposition to the PA’s UN appeal, she said: “We are in the neighbourhood, we have a direct interest in not letting the situation escalate and doing everything to resume the peace process genuinely and not the way it has been going these last years.”
Israel did find some degree of support in its usual advocates however, with British Conservative Charles Tannock paying tribute to Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu for agreeing to a ceasefire that “was very unpopular decision in his party ahead of the parliament election” that will take place on January 22.
Responding to allegations of its unacceptable incursions into Gaza, he reminded MEPs “that Israel actually withdrew voluntarily from Gaza a few years ago and I warned them at the time that this would create a terrorist haven, and unfortunately that’s what’s happened”.
Expressing hopes for the sustainability of the agreed ceasefire, he added that this was in doubt as Hamas looked to “regroup and rearm”. Equally heralded US President Barack Obama’s re-election as an opportunity “to knock heads together to produce condition to restart peace talks” aimed at achieving a two state solution, he warned that the goal was “not a three state solution which we would have if Gaza remains in the hands of the Hamas dictatorship”.
Criticising the lack of balance in the parliament, as no outcry greeted the confirmation of seven summary executions being carried out by Hamas in Gaza, he said “there’s a lot of turning a blind eye to the atrocities perpetrated by the regime in Gaza on its own people”, which he described as a “serious issue”.
Fellow pro-Israel member, Polish Socialist Marek Siwiec slammed comparisons of Gaza with an open air prison, as he insisted that “if that’s the case, then Hamas is the warden. That is the warden who doesn’t protect the prisoners”.
Equally refuting allegations of the Israeli blockade resulting in an inevitable lack of food in the Strip, he contended that “instead of smuggling missiles, perhaps they should have smuggled bread in, instead of importing missiles from Iran, perhaps they should import food”, as he concluded that “that we shouldn’t engage in propaganda, we should say very clearly what position the EU is taking”.
Responding to Gomes’ assertion that nuclear weapons were responsible for the current conflict, he retorted: “it’s not nuclear weapons that are a threat to the Middle East, it’s only one country that possesses them, but the real danger is from the missiles that are being fired from the Gaza Strip towards Israel. Is the EU going to tackle that problem or not?
Accusing Israel of perpetrating “war crimes” against Palestinians in Gaza, meanwhile, Spanish Green MEP Willy Meyer insisted the only way out of the interminable conflict was through establishing a Palestinian state, as he looked to the “an opportunity to vote in favour of setting up a Palestinian state, of making it an observer non-member state, while waiting for it to become a full state and a member of the UN general assembly”.
Invoking Monday’s resignation announcement by Israeli Defence Secretary Ehud Barak, seen as a keen proponent of last week’s ceasefire agreement, he said that whilst his resignation “could be seen as a way of moving towards peace and disarmament, actually I fear happened because public opinion wants a much tougher line”.
Concluding the debate, moderator Elmar Brok warned against taking a one-sided approach to the conflict, as he cautioned that when taking into consideration that 10,000 missiles have been launched into Israeli territory over the last 10 years, “you can’t just say that we should understand the Palestinians and the plight of Hamas”.
Israeli action were “a reaction to missiles directed at Israel”, he claimed as an insurmountable fact, as he added that whilst Israel’s policy “might be erroneous...the only way we can succeed is if both sides renounce violence”.
Emphasising Israel’s right to defend itself, he asked “how can an Israeli PM carry on if he ignores the fact that tens of thousands of missiles have been fired at his country?”, he said.
“I think we have to consider both sides and that’s the only way towards opening negotiations. Not thinking that one side ahs a moral monopoly,” Brok said.