NGOs Influence on the EU Concerning its Policies towards the Israeli Settlements
order-now-button-hover The political instabilities of Twentieth century
October 3, 2020Internet of things (IOT)
October 3, 2020NGOs Influence on the EU Concerning its Policies towards the Israeli Settlements
Abstract
The Israeli Palestinian conflict has been in existence for a number of decades, and a lot of effort has been put in place in searching for a peaceful settlement. Being one of the most influential bodies in the world, the EU has committed a lot of funds besides formulating policies with regards to the Middle East conflict. In a bid to make informed decisions on the conflict as well as enhance the legitimacy of the various policies passed in relation to the conflict, the EU engages NSAs such as nongovernmental organizations in its legislative process and decision making process. However, the influence of NGOs in EU policies towards the conflict has not been determined. As a result, this study aimed at examining NGOs Influence on the EU concerning its policies towards the Israeli settlements. To effectively analyze the effects of NGOs on EU policy making, the constructivism theory was used in the study. To carry out this study, the researcher conducted a thorough review of literature from previous studies, journals, articles as well as newspaper cuttings. From the literature, the researcher found out that the NGOs influence EU decision making, or rather policies, has been through lobbying as well as holding advocacy activities. Lobbying is done at the EU individual members’ level as well as at the assembly level. Using a hybrid of these two techniques, the NGOs have been able to push for their agenda by pushing for change in international laws that affect third parties in various conflicts. The key developers of the constructivism theory have described NGOs as the promoters of new norms, agenda setters, democratic difference makers, and agents of conflict resolution.
Keywords: NGOs, NSAs, Israeli settlement, EU, constructivism, conflict resolution, policies.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.. 1
1.4 Significance of the study. 4
1.5 Methodology and structure of the dissertation. 4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW… 6
2.2 The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 7
2.3 Non-state actors and EU external policies. 10
CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL APPROACH/FRAMEWORK.. 14
3.2 The role of NGOs and Constructivism.. 17
CHAPTER IV: ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS AND THE EU FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS. 20
4.2 The Israeli settlements. 21
4.2.1 Reasons for the establishment of settlements. 24
4.2.2 Consequences of Israelis’ settlement policy. 24
4.3 The EU differentiation policy. 25
4.5 EU measures against Israeli settlement 28
4.6 Israeli settlements product labeling. 29
4.7 Israeli government reactions. 29
CHAPTER V: NGOS INFLUENCE ON EU FOREIGN POLICY.. 31
5.2 The contribution of the NGOs. 31
5.2.4 Amnesty International 36
5.2.5 The European Friends of Israel 36
5.2.7 Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) 38
5.3 How NGOs can further influence the EU policies. 39
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 41
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 Introduction
As the episodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, efforts to come up with an equitable solution have never come to grips with the root cause of the problem. Both Israel and Palestine have their own grievances, but in most cases, the system has always favored Israel by regarding Palestine as irrational terrorist who cannot be trusted. To understand the Israel Palestine conflict, it is important to understand the history and the origin of the conflict (Gordon and Pardo, 2015, p. 14; Aggestam and Strömbom, 2013, p.25).
According to Gordon and Pardo (2015, p.14), there was no conflict in the Middle East for centuries and in the 19th century, the land in the Middle East was 86% occupied by Muslims, 10% of Christians and 4% people of the Jewish origin. However, in the late 19th century, an extremist minority of Jewish people in Europe called the Zionist decided to colonize this land. Voltolini (2015, p. 22) suggests that the main objective of the Zionist group was to create a Jewish homeland and they settled in the Middle East after considering locations in Africa and America. The Zionist showed up in Palestine because they considered it their ancestral home and they had their history attached to it.
The Jewish community bought land in Palestine and they started building their Jewish community in the area. At the beginning, there was no conflict and the Jewish and Arabs minority co-existed in peace (Voltolini, 2015, p.26). However, as the Jewish community continued to dominate the land, the majority Arabs in Palestine started to revolt, and the violent opposition continued to grow. The Jewish community had to defend itself against the Arabs in one form or another and the same situation continues up to today (Voltolini, 2015, p.27).
Being the longest serving conflict in the world, a lot of efforts have been put in place towards attaining sustainable peace in the Middle East. Voltolini and Eising (2016, p. 27) suggest that, the main challenges facing the solution to the conflict include the nature of Jerusalem, the refugee problem, Palestine statehood, and Israeli settlements. On one hand, the Arab world views the conflict as a matter of occupation coupled with Palestine self-determination. On the other hand, Israel perceives its role in the conflict as a national security matter as well as self-identity (Voltolini and Eising, 2016, p. 29).
For all those years there has been conflict in the Middle East, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have played an important role in easing the humanitarian crisis caused by the conflict. According to Aggestam and Strömbom (2013, p. 58), while European influence in Palestine peace talks have been modest, the EU (EU) has played a pivotal role in reshaping Palestine institutions. Various reports show that the EU and its member states are the highest donors to the Palestinian authority, which is Palestine governing body that resides in the West bank. European non-governmental organizations have continued to drive the same agenda of institution building while perfectly knowing that the approach is being passed by time (Gordon and Pardo, 2015, p.32).
Gordon and Pardo (2015, p. 33) suggest that, building Palestine institutions which Israel does not allow to function does not add any value to the stability of the region. Despite spending billions of euros in institutions, the payback is disappointing since most Palestinian territories are politically fractured, dysfunctional, as well as authoritarian. The EU as well as the various NGOs working in the Middle East has been accused of being too soft on Israel, by keeping silent on Israeli attacks in Gaza. Apart from some European states revoking the sale of firearms to Israel, nothing much has been done to condemn and stop Israel adversities to Palestine.
1.2 Problem statement
The escalation of conflict in most parts of the world at various levels has raised the importance of conflict resolution, and the vice has become more popular than ever. As a result of their rigid structure, most governments have failed to effectively address the conflict issue and as a result, many NGOs are playing an important role in conflict resolution all over the world. Being the world longest serving conflict, Israel –Palestine conflict has been escalating in intense, yet the world superpowers and the international community at large have failed to resolve the conflict. The biggest question is, can NGOs help in getting a solution for the Israel Palestine conflict in the Middle East?
Despite the heavy presence of NGOs in the Middle East, their impact on peace and stability in the region has not yet been designed. Previous studies have concentrated on the role of NGOs in dealing with the humanitarian crisis, by offering relief and aid to the victims. The NGOs have done well when it comes to taking care of the refugees in Palestine, but they have failed to tackle the root cause of the problem. As seen in the previous section, the European NGOs seem to be duplicating the efforts of the EU in building institutions for Palestine of which Israel has total control of. Therefore, it is important to study the role of NGOs and their influence on the EU concerning its policies towards the Israeli settlements.
1.3 Research aim
Based on the identified research problem and literature gap, the core aim of this study was to explore how NGOs have influenced the EU concerning its policies towards the Israeli settlements.
1.4 Significance of the study
The findings of this study will be significant to the society keeping in mind that the Israel Palestine conflict has existed over a decade. By identifying the role played by NGOs in influencing the EU policy towards the Israeli settlement, a method of pushing the EU to be more vocal on the conflict can be developed. Besides that, this study can provide a deeper insight to scholars and students wishing to conduct further research on the role and influence of NGOs in conflict resolution in the Middle East or any other region.
1.5 Methodology and structure of the dissertation
For this study, the researcher opted for an exploratory case study research design to carry out the study. In this case, the multiple case study type was chosen for this study where various NGOs such as the MATTIN group, Peace Now, B’Tselem, and Al-Haq were assessed how the have influenced and still influence the EU policies towards Israel. The researcher opted for an exploratory case study because it helps in investigating a distinct phenomenon characterized by the lack of a detailed preliminary study. To conduct this study, the researcher used both primary and secondary data where primary data were gathered from organizational reports, agreements, and conference papers. Secondary data, on the other hand, emanated from text books, peer reviewed journal articles, and previously carried out studies.
The dissertation is divided into five chapters, namely introduction, theoretical assessment, EU foreign policy on Israel, NGOs influence on EU foreign policy towards the Israeli settlements and conclusions. The introduction chapter provides some background information of the Israel Palestine conflict and an overview of NGO activities in the region. In addition, the introduction chapter provides the statement of the problem as well as the research objective that this study sought to meet.
The second chapter outlines the theoretical framework that was adopted by the researcher to carry out the study. The third chapter examines the European foreign policy in general and European foreign policy in relation to the Israeli settlement. The fourth chapter investigates in details NGOs influence on EU foreign policy towards the Israeli settlements. The last chapter gives conclusion from the study and recommendations for future studies.
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
As outlined in the previous chapter, the main objective of this study was to explore how NGOs have influenced the EU and her policies towards the Israeli settlements. This chapter provides a detailed review of the literature relating to the research topic with an aim of helping the reader gain more contextual and conceptual insights about the research problem. The chapter will cover the various ways in which the EU engages non-state actors in its decision the making as well as examining the role that has been played by the EU in the conflict.
The engagement of the EU with non-state actors (NSAs) which are comprised of business groups, religious groups and the NGOs has become part and parcel of the decision making process in the EU (Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven, 2016, p. 73). However, in their study, Maurer and Marchi (2014, p. 22) suggested that, though the non-state actors takes part in the EU legislation process, their opinions do not reflect on the EU final decision in most cases. Shamay-Tsoory et al. (2013, p. 56) suggest that the EU engages NSAs as formality when formulating policies, especially when dealing with sensitive issues such as the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
One way in which NSAs get involved in the EU decision making is through lobbying as well as holding advocacy activities (Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven, 2016, p. 46). On the contrary Hollis (2015, pp. 45-47) suggest that the EU external policies largely depend on the dynamics on the ground as opposed to inputs from NSAs. The role of the conflicting parties and position of third actors such as the US are weightier when making external policies (Dimitrova and Buzogány, 2014, p. 31). NSAs influence the EU external policies by targeting the individual member states or through the direct interaction with the EU (Persson, 2013, p. 33).
2.2 The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
According to Smith (2013, p. 21), since the early 1970s, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has featured frequently in the EU external agendas. Since 1970’s, the EU position on the conflict has never changed and it has always emphasized on two state solution as well as the respect for international humanitarian law, human rights as well as the international law to solve the crisis (Dimitrova and Buzogány, 2014, p. 41). Tocci (2009, p. 22) suggests that the EU actions towards the conflict do not intend to end the conflict, and it is more of a conflict management mechanism. In line with this argument, Gordon and Pardo (2015, p. 42) the act of EU supports the 4th re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who publicly disavowed a two-state solution shows that the union is not ready to push for the two state solution in the conflict.
To push for the two state solutions, the EU has tried to address though not sufficiently the final status issue which comprises of refugees, settlements, security, borders and water (Farsakh, 2011, p. 11). Over the last couple of years, settlements of Israel in the Palestinian territory have become a matter of international concern and the EU has been on the forefront condemning it (Aggestam and Strömbom, 2013, p. 21). However, Keukeleire and Delreux (2014, p. 87) suggest that the EU condemnation of the Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territory is a mere rhetoric which has continued for the last four decades.
Voltolini (2015, p. 21) suggest that, the EU policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complemented by the bilateral relationship that exists between it and the warring parties. For example, within the legal framework, the EU has bilateral relationship with both Israel and Palestine through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership/Union. Using this channel, the EU has been able to successfully push for signing an association agreement between Israel and Palestine that relates to border and humanitarian crisis management (Keukeleire and Delreux, 2014, p. 82).
Israel has been seen enjoying a healthier bilateral relationship with the EU for some years, something that has been viewed as a hindrance to the EU push for a two state settlement in Israel (Wallace, Pollack and Young, 2015, p. 33). However, the freezing of the proposed upgrade of EU-Israel Association Agreement in 2011 negatively affected the Israeli –EU bilateral relationship (Smith, 2013, p. 28). In the recent years, the EU has shown signs of deepening its relationship with Israel, but little has been done as a result of opposition from non-state actors as well as some EU member states which are pro Palestine (Aggestam and Strömbom, 2013, p. 44).
In the recent years, the Cast Lead, and some internal policies that have been passed by Israel have become an issue of great concern both inside and outside the EU (Zuhur, 2009, p. 34). The Netanyahu administration has passed policies that seek to give Israel a Jewish identity, restrict those NGOs that receive funding from abroad as well as discriminating the Arab minority in the country (Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven, 2016, p. 49). The EU has tried to be vocal on the conflict by stating that it does not recognize the changes made to pre-1967 borders as well as the annexation of East Jerusalem. In addition, the EU has been on the forefront in condemning the settlement and has called for the end to the blockade of GAZA (Voltolini and Eising, 2016, p. 11).
All the above issued have been seen to be fundamental to the peace agreement between the Israel and Palestine. However, the EU position has been seen as a normal rhetoric by some quarters, since no actions have been taken towards the realization of the two state solution and the end to annexation of Jerusalem (Maurer and Marchi, 2014, p. 46). The EU has been seen to act differently when dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict when compared to its action in other areas of the world experiencing conflict (Voltolini, 2015, p. 38). For example, in some areas where there is escalating conflicts, the EU moves very fast to put sanctions against the warring function if they do not agree to a cease fire. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, despite the EU condemns Israel actions against Palestine, no sanction has been enacted in Israel (Diez and Pace, 2011, p. 24).
Wallace, Pollack and Young (2015, p. 32) observed that, the EU has always sided with Israel in the conflict despite its constant rhetoric talk that always condemns Israeli actions. When it comes to the bilateral relationship with Palestine, the EU has managed to maintain a healthy relationship with Palestine and it was the first group to recognize the right to Palestine self-determination in a sitting held in Venice in 1986 (Shamay-Tsoory et al, .2013, p. 32). In 1999, the EU adopted the Berlin declaration that supported the establishment of a Palestine state (Falah, 2005, p. 39). The EU has shown its support for creation of a Palestinian state, by supporting the Palestine Authority (PA), in establishing and building various institutions that are relevant in running of any state (Maurer and Marchi, 2014, p. 37).
Following the victory of Hamas in 2006, the EU has shifted its focus on the West-Bank and the Palestine government (Tocci, 2009, p. 56). In addition, the EU has called for the removal of Gaza blockade and has on various occasions supported the Palestinian population who live in the Gaza strip by channeling aid through various humanitarian organizations operating in the region (Maurer and Marchi, 2014, p. 47). However Pantuliano, Mackintosh, and Elhawary (2011, p. 38) are of the opinion that, instead of the EU spending billions of euros, it should marshal its effort towards solving the root cause of the humanitarian crisis
The EU has many stakes in the region and it seems interested in arriving to a solution for the problem. Apart from being the biggest donor to the Palestinian authority, the EU has tried to have an influence on the political setup through the Quartet, which is an international forum that is made up of the UN, US, EU and Russia (Dimitrova and Buzogány, 2014, p. 39). The developed bilateral relationships between the EU and the two parties’ further shows the EU interest in the region and peace and stability in the Middle East at large (Pantuliano, Mackintosh, and Elhawary, 2011, p. 41).
However, despite the available evidence of the EU commitment to the conflict resolution process, the EU still plays as an actor with a secondary role in the process (Voltolini and Eising, 2016, p. 35). Pantuliano, Mackintosh, and Elhawary (2011, p.45) sees the EU as a payer rather than a player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is because, the EU invests a lot of money in the region, but it has not been able to impose itself politically in the region meaning that their full effect is not yet felt. Wallace, Pollack and Young (2015, p.89) suggest that, EU member state position on Israeli –Palestinian conflict tends to get closer at some point, but they have never intersected hence preventing the EU imposing itself politically in the conflict. Voltolini (2015, p. 61) suggest that, the EU remains an important figure in the conflict, but the mainstream reading is why the EU plays a secondary role in the conflict.
2.3 Non-state actors and EU external policies
The EU views input from non – state actors as an important component in its policies and policy making processes. When it comes to inputs, the EU consultations with the civil society and other interested parties in the preliminary stages of legislation makes it possible for the EU to formulate policies that take into consideration the inputs from other stakeholders (Maurer and Marchi, 2014, p. 35). In addition, taking on board inputs from other stakeholders increases the legitimacy of the legislative process. When it comes to the outputs, the NSAs have greatly benefited from the policies coming from the EU, since they are part of the funding program established by the EU (Gordon and Pardo, 2015, p. 34).
NSAs have on many occasions tried to influence the EU policies on Israel-Palestinian conflict by carrying out lobbying and advocacy activities all over the region (Hollis, 2015, p. 16). Kaya (2015, p. 41) suggests that, as a result of the limited number of staff working in the EUs offices, the input from NSAs is important in EU policy making process. NSAs have various roles which include giving firsthand information on what is happening on the ground, providing consultancy services on various issues which require expert knowledge and pointing out specific problem which enhance decision making (Kaya, 2015, p. 46).
Aggestam and Strömbom (2013, p. 67) suggest that, each NSA has a bias towards the conflict and its contribution seek to push for a certain agenda or to influence a given decision. As a result, the EU officials have the final obligation when it comes to deciding what to take and what to leave from materials coming from NSAs. According to Shamay-Tsoory et al, (2013, p. 39), information from NSAs is provided informally, through meetings, emails, reports, as well as any other written material presented to the organization. However, the EU engages NSAs in a more formal level, by inviting them to the parliamentary proceedings and formal proceeding where the NSAs are required to give their views on various issues of concern.
When it comes to the output, the NSAs are directly involved in the implantation of the various policies passed by the EU on the ground (Aggestam and Strömbom, 2013, p. 69). In some cases, NSAs are directly affected by some policies passed by the EU, especially if the policy touches on business or trade, or mode of operation for non-state actors within the EU region (Voltolini and Eising, 2016, p. 19). On the other hand, the NSAs can be part and parcel of the EU push towards conflict resolution in the affected regions (Dimitrova and Buzogány, 2014, p. 47). In this perspective the NSAs have been actively involved in dialogue, training and funding of various activities that aims at resolving the impending conflict.
2.4 Literature gap
According to Dimitrova and Buzogány (2014, p. 38) NSAs have a very important role to play in the Israeli-Palestine conflict resolution. All over the world, NSAs have played an important role in conflict resolution and humanitarian assistance in times of crisis (Diez and Pace, 2011, p. 39). However, previous studies which have focused on the role of NSAs in the formulation of the EU’s policies of the Israeli-Palestine crisis. For example the research by Voltolini (2015, p. 1-65) and Steinberg (2016) has studied the role of NSAs in the Israeli Palestine conflict without giving an indepth view of the role of NGOs in EU policy formulation.
Going back to this study whose main objective is to examine the NGOs influence on the EU concerning its policies towards the Israeli settlements, little literature is available for this topic. There is no literature that maps NGOs influence in EU’s policies towards the Israeli Palestine conflict. Voltolini (2015, p. 61) suggested that the EU plays a secondary role in the conflict, but it has not been established how the NGOs perceive this notion and their actions towards changing it. From the literature, it has been identified that most of NSAs have biases when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution, but it has not been identified whether the NGOs are biased on one side or whether the bias does not affect them.
According to Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven (2016, p. 49), the EU has also funded NSAs to implement some of the policies passed by its legislative organ. However, it is not clear whether these policies relate to the humanitarian assistance or to conflict resolution. Finally, Hollis (2015, p. 29) suggests that the NGOs have in some part of the world been invited to provide a neutral view on the various conflict issues and to help with conflict resolution. However, no study has documented the contribution of NGOs in the process of trying to resolve Israeli Palestine conflict. The above literature gap necessitated carrying out a study which examines NGOs Influence on the EU Concerning its policies towards the Israeli Settlements.
CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL APPROACH/FRAMEWORK
3.1 Introduction
Constructivist theory emerged in the mid-1990s and it was aimed at challenging the liberal and realist theoretical paradigms which were dominant at that time. Checkel (2011, p. 36) suggest that the main difference between the constructivism theory and other theories is that it emphasizes on the meaning that is attached to an object as opposed to the mere existence of the objects themselves. As a result of its wide acceptance, constructivism theory has become a major school of thought in international relations as well as conflict resolution (Forst, 2012, p. 31).
According to Jackson and Sørensen (2016, p. 48), in international relation, constructivism theory seeks to demonstrate how the core aspects are, as opposed to liberalism and neoliberalism assumption that the aspects on international relation are socially constructed. In his study Onuf (2012, p. 31) suggested that two basic tenets of constructivism theory are rapidly becoming popular and they include; the suggestion that the structure of human association is usually determined by shared ideas as opposed to material forces, and the notion that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed the shared ideas rather than being received from nature.
3.2 Constructivism
According to Wallace, Pollack and Young (2015, p. 32) one of the pivotal pillars of the constructivist school of thought are its view that the various international norms are regulative and constitutive. The EU values that serve constitutive roles are the international law, protection of human rights, as well as the peaceful settlement of international disputes (Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 2010, p.47). Persson (2013, pp. 34-87) suggest that the main objective of placing international norms, as the main focus of the EU international policy is to portray the union as a unified pact to the rest of the world, hence enabling the union to play a more influential role in global politics.
In their research Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven (2016, p.19) found that, the EU is not only constituted in a normative basis, but it also is expected to act in a normative way in various global issues. The positive engagement between the EU and the international law allows it to lay an identity marker for what it perceives as human governance model, especially when working with developing countries all over the world (Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 2010, p.49). The preference of the EU to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner, do not translate to the lack of willingness to opt for coercion, while observing the various limits set by the normative power(Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 2010,p.51). This explain the EU secondary role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict and justify spending a lot of money in humanitarian assistance as well as building institutions in Palestine with minimum political influence.
However, with most of the Jewish immigrants in Middle East originating from Europe, Gordon and Pardo (2015, p.49) suggest that the EU play a secondary role intentionally hence favoring Israel in the conflict. This might not be the EU policy, but the majority of EU members has vested interest in Israel, hence preventing the EU from playing a primary role in conflict resolution. Craig and De Búrca(2011,p.42) also suggest that the EU pursue global politics as well as the impeding conflicts while at the same time trying to avoid contradicting US powers.
On the Israel Palestine conflict, the US has openly sided with Israel equipping their army and helping them train their military personnel (Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 2010, p.43). Aggestam and Strömbom (2013, p. 63) suggest that, by taking a neutral approach which favors Palestine, the EU will be going against the US interest, hence making it difficult for the union to impose itself politically on the conflict. As a result, various NGOs have worked very hard to push the EU in acting on the conflict, but very few have been realized in the course. Maurer and Marchi (2014, p. 67) suggest th
