Annexation will be a game-changer for Europe’s role in the Middle East

Annexation will be the greatest challenge that Europe has faced in the conflict since the oil crisis after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

By ANDERS PERSSON, JPOST

THE PALESTINIAN flag flies at a Palestinian Authority diplomatic post. (photo credit: REUTERS)
THE PALESTINIAN flag flies at a Palestinian Authority diplomatic post.

Full Israeli annexation means that there will not be a true peace between Israel and her neighbors. This will redefine Europe’s role in the region in a way not seen since the oil crisis almost 50 years ago.

It is still not certain whether Israel’s annexation of its West Bank settlements will go ahead as planned after July 1, as stipulated in the new Israeli government’s coalition agreement. Much can still happen in the region and in the world that may alter Israel’s plans.

However, if Israel goes ahead and annexes all its settlements in the 30% of the West Bank where they are located, it will be the greatest challenge that Europe has faced in the conflict since the oil crisis after the 1973 Yom Kippur War; a game-changing event that will redefine Europe’s relations with the entire region for decades to come, just like the oil crisis did.

The dependence of the European Union (then called the European Community) on oil was laid bare for all to see already after the 1967 Six Day War when the EC’s official bulletin reported that the EU depended for 80% of its oil consumption (48% of its total supply of power) on the Arab members of OPEC, a figure much higher at the time than both of the superpowers.

The oil dependency became an acute matter after the next war in 1973, when the oil-producing states instigated an oil boycott against countries deemed supportive of Israel, resulting in a price hike from $3 per barrel to nearly $12. Even if the boycott was short-lived, the price hike led to massive transfers of wealth from the industrialized world to the oil producers in the Middle East.

Oil and trade, together with the increased attention to the Palestinians living under Israel’s military occupation, completely redefined Europe’s relations with the Middle East after 1973: It led to much worse relations with Israel, much better relations with the Palestinians and other Arabs, and led the Israeli-Arab conflict to become the most important conflict for Europe.

A full annexation by Israel of all its settlements in the West Bank will be an event of the same magnitude as 1973, perhaps even bigger, because it will mean that there will not be a true peace between Israel and her neighbors in the foreseeable future. Full annexation will be a devastating blow not just against the relations between the EU and its member states vis-à-vis Israel, but against the EU’s relations with the Palestinian Authority as well, and the security architecture of the whole region.

It most likely will not lead to any harsher punitive actions against Israel in the immediate aftermath because there is no consensus and little appetite in the EU at the moment to confront either Israel or the Trump administration. Over the long run, however, it is difficult to see Israel becoming more deeply integrated into the EU after a full annexation. The EU has never recognized the annexations of the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, and it is inconceivable that it will recognize the annexation of the West Bank settlements.

The EU’s relations with the Palestinians are perhaps even more complicated than those with Israel. Because of its enormous financial investment in the institutions for a future Palestinian state, the EU will be reluctant to pronounce the death of the two-state solution, especially before the PA officially does so.

The EU will also be reluctant to punish the Palestinians for something Israel has done by cutting aid too much. At the same time, the EU’s former high representative, Federica Mogherini, said just before she left office last year that if the prospect of a two-state solution disappears or no longer appears achievable, the EU and other donors would need to fundamentally review their support. That moment will arrive on the day after full annexation.

A full Israeli annexation will not mean peace but that the conflict will go on, and that the whole Levant will continue to be destabilized for the foreseeable future. It will inevitably mean that Europe’s obsession with the Israeli-Arab conflict will continue.

The writer is a political scientist at Linnaeus University, Sweden, specializing in EU-Israel/Palestine relations. His new book, 
EU Diplomacy and the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1967–2019, will be published by Edinburgh University Press in July. Twitter: @82AndersPersson

May 23, 2020 | 9 Comments »

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. Israel has the legal and historical rights to Judea/Samaria.

    Israel is not going to move 500,000 Jews in Judea/Samaria or 700,000 if you count all the Jews living past the old cease-fire line called the Green Line just because Europeans who could care less about about Jews and want it to. It certainly is not going to that because Pal-Arabs who want to destroy all of Israel and refuse to accept a Jewish State (Israel) as a permanent neighbor no matter the borders.

    Israel needs to apply sovereignty (its civil law) to all the Jewish Towns and Jordan Valley/North Dead Sea Area on July 1, 2020. In the future it should apply sovereignty to other areas of Judea/Samaria as well.

    There is no room for a Palestinian State West of the Jordan River, as it would be a danger to Israel. If Pal-Arabs can not suffice in self-governing except for security and being demilitarized in Area A of Judea/Samaria in a peaceful manner co-existing with Israel they will need to emigrate to the country of their choice.

    A full blown Pal State would be a danger to Israel. The PA is not self-sufficient now and its population in part relies on jobs in Israel and in the Jewish Towns in Judea Samaria. If the PA breaks up it is possible Israel will allow peaceful municipal self-government in various Pal-Arab Cities in Judea-Samaria. It would also be a good time for NGOs to form to assist those Arabs who wish to emigrate.

  2. @ Adam Dalgliesh:
    Holding off for 53 years on annexation, has been a major part of Israel’s “land for peace” policy. If Gaza and southern Lebanon are to be taken as examples, that seems like a losing policy for Israel.

  3. India annexed Hyderabad and Goa; Indonesia annexed Western New Guinea; PR China annexed Tibet; Morocco annexed Western Sahara, etc. Were any of these events “game changers for Europe?” Even Poland’s annexation of Pomerania & Silesia, and the USSR’s annexation of eastern Poland did’t seem to “change Europe’s game” one bit. Russia even seems to be getting away with annexing Crimea, Abkhazia and Kaliningrad, China’s getting the South China Sea… None of this seems to be changing anyone’s “game” in the least.

    Israel has every right to annex what is, frankly, Israeli territory. If that changes anyone’s game, maybe they should find a new game to play.

  4. Gideon Sa’ar: A Palestinian state in the heart of Israel is dangerous
    Arutz Sheva Staff , 24/05/20 06:46
    Sa’ar commented on US President Donald Trump’s peace plan, claiming it could not be fully supported: “The Prime Minister has also not expressed support for the plan as it was laid out. He said he is willing to negotiate. I do not accept a Palestinian state, do not accept the handing over of huge territories in the Negev, do not accept isolated communities in the heart of the land, do not accept that most of Judea and Samaria will be a Palestinian state.”

    “I trust Netanyahu, who has a big role in curbing the Oslo route, that he will not go to Gantz’s track,” Sa’ar added. “He has a historic opportunity to apply sovereignty, but my job is to make sure that there are no Israeli commitments to the vision and practical steps that will create dangerous facts on the ground. I am against a Palestinian state, even if it is proposed by a huge friend of Israel, I still think an Arab state in Israel is a danger to the State of Israel.”

    In MY opinion, if a “Palestinian” state “is proposed by a huge friend of Israel”, then HE IS NO FRIEND OF ISRAEL AT ALL.

  5. “The EU has never recognized the annexations of the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, and it is inconceivable that it will recognize the annexation of the West Bank settlements”….Precisely why sovereignty will not have any effect on the EU Israel relationship . Sovereignty needs to be implemented now. Not July 1.

  6. “A full Israeli annexation will not mean peace but that the conflict will go on…” – True but through SOVEREIGNTY AND SETTLEMENT Israel will continue to fight the conflict from an increasingly strong strategic position while the enemies of Israel will fight from an increasingly worse strategic position. Israel needs to secure its heartland without apology through sovereignty and settlement and carefully military planning. If war comes in the north or south or both, Israel will be very happy that they previously secured their heartland.

  7. “A full Israeli annexation will not mean peace but that the conflict will go on…” – True but the conflict will continue with or without annexation. but through SOVEREIGNTY AND SETTLEMENT Israel will continue to fight the conflict from an increasingly strong strategic position while the enemies of Israel will fight from an increasingly worse strategic position. Israel needs to secure its heartland without apology through sovereignty and settlement and carefully military planning. If war comes in the north or south or both, Israel will be very happy that they previously secured their heartland.

  8. A full annexation by Israel of all its settlements in the West Bank will be an event of the same magnitude as 1973, perhaps even bigger, because it will mean that there will not be a true peace between Israel and her neighbors in the foreseeable future. Full annexation will be a devastating blow not just against the relations between the EU and its member states vis-à-vis Israel,. . .” This assumes that there will be a “true peace between Israel and its neighbors” if Israel refrains from “annexation.” This is nonsense. The Arabs have had 53 years to make peace with Israel, during which Israel has not announced “annexation” of the areas in question. They had 18 years to make peace with Israel before Israel “occupied” or “conquered” this area. There is thus no reason to believe that “true peace between Israel and its neighbors” will occur if Israel refrains from “annexation.” “Annexation” will make no difference one way or another in Arab behavior towards Israel.