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
Declaration. ii
Acknowledgement iii
Abstract iv
Table of Contents. v
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.. 1
1.1 Introduction. 1
1.2 Problem statement 3
1.3 Research aim.. 3
1.4 Significance of the study. 4
1.5 Methodology and structure of the dissertation. 4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW… 6
2.1 Introduction. 6
2.2 The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 7
2.3 Non-state actors and EU external policies. 10
2.4 Literature gap. 12
CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL APPROACH/FRAMEWORK.. 14
3.1 Introduction. 14
3.2 Constructivism.. 14
3.2 The role of NGOs and Constructivism.. 17
CHAPTER IV: ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS AND THE EU FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS. 20
4.1 Introduction. 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
4.4 The rule of origin. 26
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
5.1 Introduction. 31
5.2 The contribution of the NGOs. 31
5.2.1 B’Tselem.. 34
5.2.2 Mattin Group. 35
5.2.3 Al-Haq. 35
5.2.4 Peace Now.. 36
5.2.4 Amnesty International 36
5.2.5 The European Friends of Israel 36
5.2.6 Approdev. 37
5.2.7 Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) 38
5.2.8 Regavim.. 38
5.3 How NGOs can further influence the EU policies. 39
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 41
6.1 Conclusion. 41
6.2 Recommendations. 42
Bibliography. 43
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 that the conflict has lasted for more than a century because most actors have taken sides and they are biased inhibiting the conflict resolution process.
Lack of commitment by EU to solve the conflict has demonstrated by the notion that, despite the EU being assertive on its stand when it comes to the illegality of settlements under the international law, through various declaratory means, all the European external policies have avoided exertion of any punitive measure on Israel. Israel has refused to apply and respect the international law that with regard to the correct interpretation of the international law in matters settlement. However, in recent years, the rapid changes in international legal systems that are relevant to third parties in international conflict have seen an EU push for passive enforcement of punitive measures against Israel (Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 2010, p.68).
From this point of view, the NGOs have played an indirect role in pushing the EU to act on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Various NGOs across the globe have been on the forefront fighting a change in international laws that relates to conflict (Craig and De Búrca, 2011, p.53). The NGOs push has yielded some fruits in some instances and member states of the various world governing bodies, have succumbed to NGOs agenda that are put across through lobbying as well as NGOs activities (Aggestam and Strömbom, 2013, p.27). Such laws make global actors like EU to take a more pivotal role in conflict resolution and prevented them from being biased in some conflict situation.
Recently, the EU has enforced economic measures against Israeli settlement in the West Bank, which is an act of a legal formula and the assertion that the EU normative power does no equate to complete absence of coercion (Voltolini and Eising, 2016, p.23). Persson (2013, p. 44) suggests that the centrality of international law in the EU foreign policy is helping the EU to both the internal and external policy coherence and at the same time has given the union a good basis of approaching the conflict since it has the backing of the international law.
Underlining third parties, which is one of the obligations under the international laws of the EU officials is the reason why there are so many non-state actors in the EU foreign policy making (Kaya, 2015, p.38). According to Aggestam and Strömbom (2013, p. 59), there are more than 270 NSAs in the EU, which have interests in the Middle East conflict. ECCP which is a coalition of 6 NGOs which operate within the EU region has been lobbying for the EU to adopt effective measures to ensure respect for Palestinian rights, adherence to international law, and an end to impunity of Israeli violations and crimes.
3.2 The role of NGOs and Constructivism
For a long time now, non-state actors have been regarded as important elements in global politics from an international relation (IR) perspective. NGOs are the most active NSAs in the world and their role in international politics is indisputable (Mingst and Arreguín-Toft, 2013, p.42). However, the rising cases of conflicts all over the world have resulted in the transformation of the role of NGOs in global politics from participants, to catalyst of conflict resolution in various parts of the world where there is conflict. In most conflicts, state actors tend to have bias as a result of the bi – lateral relationship between the conflict parties making it important to have neutral actors on board to help in conflict resolution (Manners, 2010, p.24).
Across the range of theoretical traditions, non-state actors are normally afforded a role, but the role is usually secondary to that of other states. However, in social constructivism, NGOs are given the strongest and the most significant role in global politics. 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. The NGOs do not drive the normative change using a bottom up approach, as most people in global politics tend to presume (Büthe, Major and Souza, 2012, p.32).
The NGOs in most cases operate as agents of governance, preserving the status quo, and in some cases fighting the status quo and bringing change (Shamay-Tsoory et al, .2013, p. 37). The NGOs influence global politics through lobbying, and organizing activities such as demonstration to push for something in the global arena. The Israeli Palestinian conflict has existed for over almost a century and has been at the center stage of global politics for some time now. Various NSAs have played an important role in trying to end the conflict with several NGOs being on the frontline advocating for human rights and seeking for conflict resolution.
The EU is one of the main actors in the Israeli Palestine conflict and NGOs in Europe have tried to take part and influence the various policies that the EU has passed in relation to the Israeli Palestinian conflict (Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 2010, p.42). According to Dimitrova and Buzogány (2014, p. 19), despite the EU spending billions of Euros in the Israeli –Palestine conflict, has not been able to impose itself politically in the conflict and drive a solution from the crisis. The EU is seen as a secondary actor in the conflict and its voice on various contentious issues in the conflict has not been clear.
The NGOs operating both in Europe and Israel have tried to push the EU to play a more important role in helping to solve the Israeli Palestine conflict (Dimitrova and Buzogány, 2014, p.33).
CHAPTER IV: ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS AND THE EU FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
4.1 Introduction
The war between Palestinians and Israelis in 1967 led to the implementation of new settlement policies by the government. The conflict was only proven successful as a result of providing the state with an opportunity to authenticate total domination. Nonetheless, it also portrayed an image of moral disaster by transforming the state of governance of the nation. Hanieh (2001, p.75) suggests that all Israel governments, labour and other ministries searched for settlements after 1967 in an effort to reinforce Israeli control over the occupied territories and avoid the rise of a Palestinian state. Furthermore, the Israel state authorized stipulations to the Palestinians living in the West Bank. The actions placed against the Palestine community included induction of curfews, elimination of water and electricity supply and limitation of access to communication.
Recently, Israel is segregating itself globally through developing its settlement plans on the lands declared by the Palestinians for the inevitable period. The EU has analysed Israel’s schemes to settle in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Despite the criticism and the consistent advice to hold peace talks in order to establish a common understanding, the Israel community has persistently continued to maintain its focus (Harms and Ferry, 2008, p.67). The concept of security enhancement for successful settlement plans has not made Israel more secure but the defensive walls and other security missions have contributed to the suffering of the Palestinian community and global critic (Hanieh, 2007, p.78).
4.2 The Israeli settlements
The Israeli settlements refer to towns and estates entrenched by the Jews in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights after the Six-Day war of 1967. These settlements are Jewish communities established in known Palestinian territories beyond the Green Line separating the border between the Palestine and Israel states. According to Raymond (2011, p.5), Jewish settlements and Jewish Diaspora operations are the elementary units upon which Israel dominates. The Six-Day war resulted in the establishment of the Labor and Likud political parties which promoted the development of settlements.
Weizman (2006, p.111), records that all the Israeli governments, that is, Likud, Labour or Unity governments, have influenced the development and expansion of the settlements. The Labor party was the first political agreement to set settlements between 1968 and 1977 with the solid reason of securing the West Bank area from the Judea and Samaria communities. The Likud government gained power in Israel and transformed the settlement project from an impromptu venture into an elegant state project leading to permanent settlements therefore resulting in the violation of the basic principle of International Humanitarian Law (Weizman, 2006, p.111).
Israeli settlement policies are dynamic and keep changing over the years depending on the allocation of funds, government influence and historical and religious aspects. The Israeli Civil Administration promoted the existence of Jewish settlements and restricted the growth of Palestinian settlements. This policy aimed at countering the Palestinian population and building the territorial bases. Other reasons for the administration of this settlement policy include economic benefits, social interests such as accessibility to natural resources, agricultural benefits, political negotiations, military and security requirements (Harms and Ferry, 2008, p.78).
The development of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory discontinued the requirements of, the 1907 Hague convention on the Law and Customs of War on Land and its regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention corresponding to the Protection of Citizens in Time of War. The UN security set out that the formation of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories was illegal and created tension and conflict in the Middle East (Sayigh, 2008, p.11).
British mandatory and Jordanian laws and Israeli military orders judicial case law and administration regulation are the foundation of Israel authority with respect to settlements (Braverman, 2008, p.450). Based on the European Council (EC) and the EU (EU), Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) are unauthorized according to the international law and act as barriers towards the establishment of a two-state unravelling. This is because a nation that defends itself from conflicts is likely to grab and occupy land as a requirement for its own safety. This settlement is intertwined with the need for security enhancement to protect the citizens from displacement.
Following the 1967 conflict, Israel has established more than 100 settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. In addition to these settlements there also exist other housing developments that are not known by the conflict resolution officials. Since the settlements were built on the Palestinian territory, they depicted a breach of their property, land and equity rights. According to (B’tSelem, 2002, p.91) the settlements have been established along three strips ,that is, the mountain strip, eastern strip, and the western hill strip and one around the Jerusalem metropolitan area.
In the mountain strips, settlements cut across the West Bank along Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Hebron and Bethlehem centres while the Jordan Valley and the shores of the Dead Sea are situated along the Eastern Strip. Furthermore the Western Hill Strip constitutes of the area west of the mountain ridge through the Green Line. The Jerusalem Metropolis cuts over the eastern part of the city from the West Bank and the Old City from its Arab Metropolitan areas.
In 2012 the Israeli Central Bureau recorded the number of the settlements in the West Bank as 124 with close to 350,120 settlers. In 2009,there were more than 100 outposts in the West Bank whereas the Peace Now organization reported 137 settlements, 100 outposts and 10 Israeli industrial areas in the West Bank(Ophir, Givoni and Ḥanafī, 2009,p.41). Further, based on the findings of Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies of 2009, there were 498,000 settlers in the West Bank and 186,646 in East Jerusalem(Ophir, Givoni and Ḥanafī, 2009,p.42).
The second settlement plans took place in 1968 when the Israeli civilians occupied the Park Hotel in Hebron(Dubuisson, 2014, p.4). After the election of Menachem Begin as the prime minister of Israel, his government, as well as that of the Likud party, contributed financial support to the Israelis to enable them to successfully migrate and settle in parts of Samaria and Judea. The West Bank region had a scarce population when the peace talks were been held with only about a fifth portion of the area been occupied(Dubuisson, 2014, p.5). Recently, three-fifths of the region is occupied by the Israelis living in Ma’ale Adumin, Givat Ze’er, Gush Etzion, Ariel and Modiin lllit blocs which are located a few miles away from the Green Line.
4.2.1 Reasons for the establishment of settlements
- To strengthen Israel’s dominance in the region since it was a section of the biblical and historical Israel. Consequently, this settlement would acquire the formation of a Palestinian state.
- Economic factors made it easier for the Israeli community to settle in the region. This is because the financial support provided them with easier accessibility to household items, medical facilities and employment opportunities.
4.2.2 Consequences of Israelis’ settlement policy
The Israeli settlement policy has led to a widespread of violations which are totally forbidden since they create differentiation with the set guidelines on the general principles and the rules of law. The actions taken towards the settlement by the Israel communities infringe the rights of the individuals and the rights of the Palestinian community at large. The violation of rights to settlement predominantly affects the customary state of the communities’ independence (Harpaz, 2012, p.467).
This policy also affects the requirements of the international law. For instance, the global law regulations disregard access and grabbing of land through rivalry. It also goes against the regulation based on article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states that the occupying authority shall not deport or transfer parts of its own citizen into the area it occupies. The policy has also contributed to the contravention of the Hague rules and regulations which states that the citizens shall not be expropriated of their land, private property and other natural reserves (Dubuisson, 2014, p.8).
4.3 The EU differentiation policy
The EU enforced a de facto policy of differentiating between Israel and settlement activities in the occupied regions within its bilateral relations (Camagni and Capello, 2013, p.29). According to Ophir, Givoni and Ḥanafī (2009,p.54) differentiation is one of the most important tool that the EU is expected to use challenge the incentivces structure thet underpin Israel support for the status quo. The EU’s legal requirement to adhere to its Israeli settlement policy brought about a legally associated agreement around differentiation and thus the EU and Israeli leaders worked together to strengthen the EU-Israeli ties and pursue peace(Camagni and Capello, 2013,p.31).
The EU has never acknowledged the legality of Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem and Syrian Golan Heights and moreover it doesn’t consider agreements signed with Israeli to apply for Israel based settlements (McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2015, p.19). This led to the EU’s failure to pursue a legal rule of discernment and the inexistence of an explicit territorial clause in the EU’s 1995 Association Agreement with Israel.
Increasing pressure from the NGOs and the European Parliament and the dissatisfaction of the European Commission and member states over the lack of upgrade to the EU-Israeli states solution forced the EU to pay greater attention in eliminating the regional scope of agreements entered into with Israel as well as the territorial limitations to global agreements signed by Israel (Sasse, 2008, p.41). In 2010, the European Court of Justice ruled that, the EU agreements with Israel to be exemplified in consideration of EU’s agreement Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (Keukeleire and Delreux, 2014, p.44).
In 1997 the European Commission (EC) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) enlisted a temporary association agreement on trade and cooperation for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Simão and Freire, 2008, p.19). The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the two association agreements, the EC-Israel Association Agreement and the EC-PLO Interim Association Agreement, do not overlap and have a territorial outlook (Simão and Freire, 2008, p.24). The ECJ pointed out that as a follow up the 1995 EC-Israel Association agreement cannot be interpreted to compel the Palestinian authorities to forgo their right to exercise the competence deliberated to them by the 1997 EC-PLO Interim Association Agreement (Simão and Freire, 2008, p.27).
The ECJ customs authorities of each exporting country must have expertise within their territorial jurisdiction to issue origin/ movement certificates. Imposition of custom rules on Israel’s products by the EU aimed at impeding Israel from investing in its settlement project. However, based on Who Profits, an Israeli NGO monitoring industry, there are 136 companies in the territories exporting goods to European countries among which 125 are located in West Bank, 7 in Golan Heights and 4 in both West Bank and Golan Heights. 94 of these companies are headquartered at Israel’s pre-1967 borders while 35 are in the territories and the rest are organizations of firms from Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States and Singapore (Eberlein and Radaelli, 2010, p.39).
4.4 The rule of origin
In 2005 the EU implemented the Rules of Origin (ROO) clause of the 1995 European Community (EC)-Israel Association Agreement and subjected Israel settlement products to custom duty (Eberlein and Radaelli, 2010, p.11). The EU-Israel case suggests that the current separation between the ROO and the Israeli products labelling rules weakens the ROO thus hindering the rule’s effectiveness. The ROO serves to legitimize EU trade with Israel and boost the Union’s self-recognition as a standard power. In 1998 the European Commission set out that based on the UN General Assembly and Security Council decisions, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, or the Golan Heights are not considered part of the territory of the state of Israel. Legally, EU has maintained that the law of occupation applies to the Palestinian region and that Israeli settlements are subsequently illegal.
In 2004, the EC-Israel Joint Customs Cooperation Committee designed an arrangement to end this misunderstanding and this led to Israeli settlement products been subjected to preferential treatment (European Commission 1997, p.377). Israeli custom authorities identified the origin of all products exported to the EU specifying the city, village or industrial zone. This labels were accompanied by the use of postcodes thus influenced the impact of the ROO on Israeli industry. This led to the forbiddance of Israeli goods produced in the Israeli settlements to EU markets. However, Israeli non-settlements postcode export goods benefit from trade tariffs despite using raw materials from settlements (Fox and Godement, 2009,p.43).
EU agreements with Israel applied to the state of Israel within the pre-1967 border but consistently criticized the Israel settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The EU-Israel Action Plan established in 2004 was implemented in the framework of the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) which enhanced bilateral relations. This article targeted the political dimension of the envisioned type of EU-Israel ties based on the Action Plan. The ENP aimed at preventing the emanation of new demarcating lines between the EU and its neighbours and facilitating their engagement in EU activities (Commission, 2004b, p.3).
Brussels has repeatedly proposed the freezing of Israeli settlements in the territories with respect to the human rights of the Palestinians. Israel blamed the EU for pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab bias, majorly criticizing Brussels for utilizing economic means to meet political goals. The EU reinforced Israel to reverse the settlement policy and facilitate humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians (European Council, 2002a, p.15; 2002b, p 36). The EU continually criticized Israeli policies for instance the security policies leading to Israel denying EU’s political role.
4.5 EU measures against Israeli settlement
The EU and its member states have developed strong relationships with Israel economically and politically. This has brought about a favoured nation status to Israel thus influencing its economic links. The political connections, however, are conflicting and result from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the setting up and expansion of Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This favored status in addition to tax exemptions facilitates access to grants, aid, prizes and investments from the EU (Fox and Godement, 2009,p.45).
In 2013, the European Commission prohibited the EU member states from financing or investing in Israeli settlements founded in Occupied Palestinian Settlements and Syrian lands. The EU further banned the issue of grants or prizes to these settlements. The EU views the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as occupied territories and that Israel doesn’t have supremacy over these lands (Shikaki, 2009, p.33).
The EU’s policy provision clearly asserts that all the Israeli settlements in the occupied regions since 1967 do not constitute the state of Israel and are thus not incorporated in the agreements between EU and Israel (Shikaki, 2009, p.38). Regarding the provision of funds, prizes and investments from EU institutions, the EU policies outline that any Israeli institution that seeks to obtain EU support should present a statement affirming that all its activities transpire within the territories established on June 4, 1967, and that there exist no direct or indirect connections to Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights. EU’s commitment to policies opposing Israeli occupations and settlements of Palestinian lands may result in effective pressure against Israeli’s decision to expand settlements.
4.6 Israeli settlements product labeling
In 2013, the European Commission and the EU set guidelines concerning labelling requirements for imports from Israeli settlements and took necessary legal and administrative steps in order to place labels on these products (Barak, 2013, p.38). This policy conformed to non-state actors in boycott movements against Israeli products due to the persistence of the settlements. Product labelling aims at the effective implementation of existing legislation to ensure consumer protections and to enhance traceability. It prohibits the provision of false or plausible misleading information or the omission of important information all of which enables the customer to make informed decisions.
The NGO programs of ‘Trading Away Peace’ and the ECFR’s ‘’ EU Differentiation and Israeli Settlements’’ utilized measures to execute and penalize Israel. Such measures include discouraging private sector dealings with Israeli settlement companies, prohibiting imports from settlements and imposing strict territorial clauses on existing and future agreements between Israel and the EU. According to Trading Away Peace, allowing trade with settlements did not comply with European governments.
4.7 Israeli government reactions
The favored state status that Israel has in its economic links with EU is limited by the EU policies. Israeli has thus contended on acknowledging its colonial project in the occupied territories and combined the legal policy of its settlements with pre-1967 Israel. Israel attempted to challenge EU’s decision pointing out that sanctions on settlements would result in the destruction of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (Biscop, Balfour and Emerson, 2012, p.31). Following EU’s decision, Israel cancelled its cooperation with EU representatives in the occupied West Bank and terminated any financial aid by the EU to the Palestinian economic projects in Area C of the West Bank. Israel also directed to restrict the entry and exit of EU representatives from the Gaza Strip (Amos, 2013, p.58). These measures were aimed at influencing EU into negotiations in order to reduce the EU measures or postpone them under weak alleged reasons such as the continuation of negotiations with Palestinians.
CHAPTER V: NGOS INFLUENCE ON EU FOREIGN POLICY
5.1 Introduction
Non-state actors such as business groups, NGOs and think tanks focus on EU policies towards the Israeli settlements while they solicit and uphold activities. These non-state actors are involved in the following policy making process by implementing EU projects, participating in the formulation of EU policies and benefit from EU’s allocation of finances. NGOs are the most active non-state actors that influence the EU policy towards the Israeli settlements and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts (Voltolini, 2012, p.25). The non-governmental organizations are mainly concerned with the delivery of services, advancement activities and environmental issues e.g. Friends of the Earth Middle East.
Pro-Israel lobbies have been established in Brussels since 1990s such as the European Friends of Israel (EFI), the Transatlantic Institute (TAI), B’nai B’rith and the European Jewish Congress (EJC). The European Coordinating Committee and Associations for Palestine (ECCP) is a coalition of a number of NGOs of the European countries. The ECCPs objectives include encouraging the EU to adopt effective measures to ascertain the recognition of Palestinian rights, compliance with international law and to end Israeli violations and crimes (Jerska, 2013, p.34). The ECCP also aims at coordinating between NGOs, trade unions, academics and churches in promoting sanctions and isolation of Israel.
5.2 The contribution of the NGOs
Non-governmental organizations are civil society associations that work independently from governments to provide social and political services. In Israel there are close to 40,000 NGOs that affect EU policies through soliciting the government, advocating and holding media campaigns. NGOs are vital groups that represent the disadvantaged and exorbitant populations. NGOs lack legal control over territories or people and do not participate in state power but their efforts are recognized by many governments. State actors directly influence NGO activities by globalizing politics when NGOs pressure their governments to alter certain concerns (Joachim and Locher, 2008, p.33).
These state actors also guide trans-national politics when NGOs form networks that aid in attaining similar alterations in other states and control global debates. These actors also influence supranational politics when the NGOs take on multinational. NGOs have often made use of political influence by challenging international debates, setting agendas, contending for new norms, recommending and expediting negotiations and stressing reluctant governments to bring about change. NGOs create changes by directly providing aid for the needy through humanitarian and development efforts. NGOs have been widely established in environmental, social and developmental politics (Schimmelfennig and Thomas, 2009, p.16).
These NGOs are classified into campaign, expert, humanitarian, and/or grassroots types depending on the activities they engage in. Campaign NGOs activities basically include mobilizing its members and the public. Expert NGOs provide consultation services and share information with the public. Humanitarian NGOs offer ethical practical orientation and support the needy people. Grassroots enable self-organizing citizens to undertake local, state and global projects. Expert NGOs share information publicly or hold campaigns to conduct negotiation measures over environmental issues into certain directions (Joachim and Locher, 2008, p.43).
Social justice NGOs such as Adalah, Aprodev and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) have enhanced societal projects and have successfully defended the human rights of inherent persons. International peace NGOs such as Ir Amim, NGO Monitor etc. develops value communities in order to pursue objectives in a culturally transcendent way. These can be achieved by the mediation of NGOs over conflicting parties especially when these parties are not willing to engage in dialogue (Joachim and Locher, 2008.p.47).
The EU provides financial assistance to legalized NGOs operating in the Arab-Israel conflict through several funding mechanisms such as: Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (ENPI), the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department etc. the EUs financial policy aids in promoting peace, cooperation and the protection of human rights. This funding enables the NGOs to promote anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and law-fare campaigns (Pardo and Peters, 2009, p.12).
The NGOs use several tactics to influence the EU policies. The most common tactic applied by these organizations is boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS). Boycott movements against Israeli products, culture or academics are conducted by anti-Israeli NGOs. Importation of products from Israel is discouraged as well as cooperation with Israeli institutions and pro-Israel individuals (Biscop, Balfour and Emerson, 2012, p.39). Anti-Israel NGOs misrepresent the concept of ethical investing by accusing companies that engage in business ventures in Israel involvement in the violation of international law. Anti-Israel activists appeal the international community to act on achieving in-depth sanctions against Israel.
Another tactic used is law-fare which consists of lawsuits and campaigns in foreign, domestic and international courts against Israeli officials, companies and governments that have relations with Israeli. Law-fare entails the exploitation of judicial bodies to boost BDS and impede counterterror measures as well as efforts to interfere with the Israeli judicial system. It also consists of the use of international legal rhetoric and distortion of international law as a basis of promoting BDS. This tactic organizes incitements such as flotillas and violent demonstrations under the demeanor of humanitarian operations and international law(Camagni and Capello, 2013,p.49).
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has raised much attention from a wide range of policy makers. Despite the efforts from various groups to provide a reasonable solution to the issue at hand, NGOs have accounted for 49% of the support offered to the state (Voltolini, 2012, p.25). The NGOs that have contributed positively to the conflict resolution include; Mattin Group, Peace Now, B’Tselem, Al-Haq, Aprodev Advocacy, European Friends of Israel, Coalition of Women for Peace etc.
5.2.1 B’Tselem
The NGO is a member of Federation Internationale des Droits de I’Honne (FIDH) which is a coalition of worldwide NGOs based in Paris that operates in anti-Israel boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaigns worldwide. The B’Tselem organization was established for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of the conflict victims, preventing land grabbing and organizing development projects for settlement (Jaeger and Paserman, 2008, p.34).
5.2.2 Mattin Group
Mattin group is located in the West Bank where it keeps track of the EU links with Israel. Mattin Group and some European NGOs catapulted several interventions aimed at promoting steadiness between the EU’s governance and human rights obligations to Israel and Palestinian authorities. Through sharing of relevant information with public officials, Mattin Group outlines the problem linked with EU importation of settlement goods to EU officials. This group surpasses EU’s inability to implement customs duties that favour Israel’s extension of its supremacy into the occupied territories (Shamas, 2014, p.35).
The Mattin Group has supported negotiations between EUROPOL and Israel by revealing their sources of information. The Mattin Group has provided guidance to the EU authorities concerning the Israeli perception of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. They advised the team against accepting interpretation since it conflicts with the budgetary and custom related regulations of the law. The group has also provided advice to the external action service and vindicated the European Commission Services on matters relating to the legal issues (Steinberg, 2011, p.33).
5.2.3 Al-Haq
Al-Haq is an anti-Israel member organization of the Palestinian Human Rights Organization Council (PHROC). Al-Haq was established to protect the human rights of the Palestinian citizens. It has made various contributions and conducted campaigns with respect to various conflicts within the region. It normally files lawsuits, submits reports to the UN Human Rights Council and also lobbies international forums. In 2006, Al-Haq filed a case against the United Kingdom government to terminate export licenses to Israel. It also filed a case against Green Park International Limited, a Canadian company, accusing the company of promoting and colluding with Israel to commit war crimes (Sagie, Morris, Rofè, Orenstein and Groner, 2013,p.35).
5.2.4 Peace Now
The objective of the Peace Now is to establish a two-state solution for the conflict between Israeli and Palestinian communities. The organization developed a settlement watch project which was required to closely oversee and shield against the settlement of Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The project included an extensive survey of the socio-economic factors, population status and environmental implications among other aspects (Sagie, Morris, Rofè, Orenstein and Groner, 2013,p.38).
5.2.4 Amnesty International
Amnesty international (AI), an anti-Israel NGO, is involved exclusively with the protection of human rights. Grassroots International (GRI) is a human rights and development organization that allocates finances to community groups such as the Union of Palestinians Working Women’s Committee worldwide that work towards the achievement of peace and social justice.
5.2.5 The European Friends of Israel
The European Friends of Israel is an important and effective pro-Israel lobby (Cronin, 2011, p, 137). It focuses on the Members of European Parliament (MEP) to conduct its soliciting activities. The EFI influences MEPs through holding meetings, conference events, political initiatives and missions. Other than MEPs the EFI also works with EU member states, national parliament unions particularly members of the Israel friendship.
The EFI was founded in 2006 by diverse pro-Israel MEPs and member states parliamentarian to regulate their efforts. It was founded with the political objective of improving movement and monitoring EU legislation concerning Israeli interests. Israeli policies concerning the human rights of Palestinian prisoners and the Israeli application of administrative detention have resulted in criticism by the EU. This criticism from the EU caused the EFI to influence the MEPS (Jaeger and Paserman, 2008, p.54).
The EFI organized policy conferences to create understanding between Israel and Europe and to build relationships. Israel has also been criticized by NGOs and activists and the European commission concerning the inadequate protection of the rights of women. The European commission in the European Neighbourhood Policy reports for Israel featured the minimal wages and high levels of unemployment for women, the small percentage of women ministers and their underrepresentation in local government (Jaeger and Paserman, 2008, p.56).
5.2.6 Approdev
Aprodev is an NGO that was founded in 1990 and later merged with ACT Alliance to form ACT Alliance Advocacy to the EU in 2015. This assimilation strengthened the cooperation between the European development organizations which work with the World Council of Churches (WCC). The WCC mobilizes churches globally to support the international boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaign against Israel (Jaeger and Paserman, 2008, p.58). Aprodev advocacy also uses lobbying civil society mobilizations and other non-violent tactics in coordination with a class of partners and similar organizations in Europe, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Aprodev advocacy work on Israel-Palestine relations addresses the inadequacy of EU and its member states to implement their policies towards Israeli and Palestinians based on international civil liberties and humanitarian mandate.
5.2.7 Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP)
The Coalition of Women for Peace initiated the ‘Who Profits’ campaign to respond to the Palestinian movement to boycott, divestment and sanction on Israel. ‘Who Profits‘is an activist instrument and it identifies destinations for anti-Israel divestments and boycotts. CWP campaigned against big Israeli banks, security firms, Ahava cosmetics and Agrexco produce (Steinberg, 2011,p.49).
5.2.8 Regavim
Regavim was founded in 2006 as a settler-right NGO based on a Supreme Court case against an illegal outpost of Harasha in Samaria initiated by Peace Now in 2005. Regavim is an Israeli NGO that ascertains the legal, accountable, responsible and environmentally friendly use of Israelis national lands. It centres on the construction work in the Galilee, Negar and the West Bank initiated by Israel Arabs and Palestinians without Israel permits. This NGO is financed by public funds from West Bank local settlements councils and settler organization Amana. In 2010, Regavim successfully petitioned to stop Israeli demolition orders against settler homes such as Har Bracha and Migron. Regavim monitors violations of natural resource for construction, roads and other developments by Palestinians (Fox and Godement, 2009, p.59).
In 2015, Regavim recorded the construction of houses capitalized by the British Charity Oxfam and the EU claiming that the EU subsidized illegal housing in area C of West Bank which based on Oslo Accords is under interim Israel jurisdiction. According to Oxfam, it claimed it funded the construction for humanitarian reasons while the EU based their reasons for funding to aid Palestinians right to possess the land. The EU claimed that Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory are illegal and they brought about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regavim NGO sued Bedouin settlements thereby interfering with the Bedouin constructions in the Negar and elsewhere. According to Dror Elges Regavim was founded as a reaction to anti-settlement NGOs. (Nere and Nicola, 2015, p.116) stated that Regavim’s aims and activities create conflict in transforming dispossession as a human right.
5.3 How NGOs can further influence the EU policies
Currently, the NGOs in Europe which have an interest in Israeli Palestine conflicts are more concerned with advocacy as the main method of influencing EU policies towards Israeli settlements (Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven, 2016, p. 46). The advocacy involves raising of awareness, public opinions, mobilization of public opinion networking and lobbying. The above advocacy methods are combined to come up with an advocacy strategy and the combination depends on the atmosphere, the relationship that exist between the NGOs and the EU, organization culture, and the risk involved (Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven, 2016, p. 47).
However, these methods of lobbying have not worked in the Israeli Palestine case as a result of the complexity of the situation (Steinberg, 2011, p. 58). However, there are some new ways in which the NGOs in Europe can employ to push the EU to be more vocal in the conflict. Jaeger and Paserman (2008, p. 54) suggest that, the NGOs should conduct advertising campaigns and public initiatives supporting their views. When it comes to advertising, the NGOs should focus less on the mainstream media and concentrate on social media lobbying and advocacy (Fox and Godement, 2009, p. 47).
According to Jackson and Sørensen (2016, p. 63) the social media has changed the way people interact and communicate and it is unfortunate that the NGOs are yet to take advantage of the social media in pushing for the ideas. In recent times, activist has been creating online petitions that are signed by millions of people from all over the world and taking the petitions to the authority for consideration. The social media help to amplify activist voice, hence promoting their agendas. A good example of social media advocacy is a petition by Alf Dubs which seek to compel the British government accept the call to give sanctuary to child refugees who are alone and at risk in Europe (Jackson and Sørensen, 2016, p. 64).
Apart from utilizing the social media in their advocacy, the NGOs should educate legislators and other stakeholders in the EU decision making process on the positive and negatives of the EU playing a secondary role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This can be done by targeting officials representing EU’s individual member states as well as the employees of the EU. The education process should be engaging so that all the stakeholders understand the NGOs stand and the reason why the NGOs thing the EU should act (Fox and Godement, 2009, p. 54).
Funding is another major concern when it comes to advocacy and lobbying for NGOs. Most of the NGOs get their funding from government institutions and the EU (Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven, 2016, p. 63). As a result, the NGOs are cautious when doing the lobbying as they seek to maintain their good relationship with the main contributors to their budget. For the NGOs to effectively lobby for EU action in the Israeli Palestine conflicts, they must come up with alternative methods of raising funds for their activities. This can be achieved through the formation of formal action committees to contribute money for the various campaigns and advertisement. In addition, the NGOs should take advantage of free advertising and lobbying platforms such as the social media (Kaufman, Salem and Verhoeven, 2016, p. 64).
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
A number of conclusions have been arrived at from this study whose aim was to investigate how NGOs have influenced EU foreign policy towards the Israeli settlements. From the research, it is evident that NGOs get involved in the EU decision making is through lobbying as well as holding advocacy activities. The NGOs influence EU policies by targeting member’s state with their activities or through direct interaction with the EU. The inclusion of non-state actors in the EU decision making process has enabled NGOs with interest in the Israeli-Palestine conflict to push for their agenda and influence the EU policy with regards to the Israeli settlement.
NGOs have often made use of political influence by challenging international debates, setting agendas, contending for new norms, recommending and expediting negotiations and stressing reluctant governments to bring about change. NGOs create changes by directly providing aid for the needy through humanitarian and development efforts. NGOs have been widely established in environmental, social and developmental politics.
By forming coalitions, NGOs have been able to amplify their voice hence effectively lobbying and affecting EU policies towards the Israeli settlements. For example, the European Coordinating Committee and Associations for Palestine (ECCP) is a coalition of a number of NGOs of the European countries. The ECCPs objectives include encouraging the EU to adopt effective measures to ascertain the recognition of Palestinian rights, compliance with international law and to end Israeli violations and crimes. The ECCP has managed to coordinate various NGOs, trade unions, academics and churches in promoting sanctions and isolation of Israel.
NGOs playing in the global arena have had a significant impact on the EU policies on Israeli Palestine conflict by advocating for a change in the international laws. Despite the EU being assertive on its stand when it comes to the illegality of settlements under the international law, through various declaratory means, all the European external policies have avoided exertion of any punitive measure on Israel. Israel has refused to apply and respect the international law that with regard to the correct interpretation of the international law in matters settlement. However, rapid changes in international legal systems that are relevant to third parties in international conflict have seen an EU push for passive enforcement of punitive measures against Israel
6.2 Recommendations
This study effectively addressed the question of how the NGOs have influenced EU foreign policy towards the Israeli settlements. The study was based on secondary sources and in future it will be important to carry out a primary study that collects views from all the stake holders in the Israeli Palestine conflict. In addition, future studies should concentrate on determining the various strategies and measures that can be adopted by NGOs to increase their influence in EU decision making when it comes to the Israeli settlement. In addition, the future research should quantify the effectiveness of the current measures being employed by NGOs to influence EUs decisions.
Bibliography
Adler, E., 2013. Constructivism in international relations: sources, contributions, and debates. Handbook of international relations, 2, pp.112-144.
Aggestam, K. and Strömbom, L., 2013. Disempowerment and marginalisation of peace NGOs: exposing peace gaps in Israel and Palestine. Peacebuilding, 1(1), pp.109-124.
Amos Hereb, following the boycott of settlements: Yaalon orders a Halt to Cooperation with the EU, 2013.
B’tSelem. 2002. Land Grab-Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank, p.91. [online]. Available at: < http://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publication/200205_land_grab_eng.pdf> [Accessed July 24, 2016].
Barak D. 2013. Half of the EU Countries Support the Placing of Labels on the Products of Settlements.
Biscop, S., Balfour, R. and Emerson, M., 2012. An Arab Springboard for EU Foreign Policy?.
Braverman, I., 2008. The Tree Is the Enemy Soldier: A Sociolegal Making of War Landscapes in the Occupied West Bank. Law & Society Review, 42(3), pp.449-482.
Brownlie, I. and Goodwin-Gill, G.S., 2010. Brownlie’s documents on human rights. Oxford University Press.
Büthe, T., Major, S. and e Souza, A.D.M., 2012. The politics of private foreign aid: humanitarian principles, economic development objectives, and organizational interests in NGO private aid allocation. International Organization, 66(04), pp.571-607.
Camagni, R. and Capello, R., 2013. Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: toward smart innovation policies. Growth and change,44(2), pp.355-389.
Checkel, J.T., 2011. The social dynamics of civil war: Insights from constructivist theory. Simons Papers in Security and Development, 10, pp.1-24.
Coen, D. and Richardson, J., 2009. Lobbying the EU: institutions, actors, and issues. Oxford University Press.
Commission of the European Communities. 2004b. EU/Israel Action Plan, final (adopted in April 2005), pp.3
Craig, P. and De Búrca, G., 2011. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.
Cronin, D., 2011. Europe’s alliance with Israel: aiding the occupation. New York, NY.
Diez, T. and Pace, M., 2011. Normative power Europe and conflict transformation. In Normative Power Europe (pp. 210-225). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Dimitrova, A. and Buzogány, A., 2014. Post‐Accession Policy‐Making in Bulgaria and Romania: Can Non‐state Actors Use EU Rules to Promote Better Governance?. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(1), pp.139-156.
Dubuisson, F., 2014. The International Obligations of the EU and its Member States with regard to Economic Relations with Israeli Settlements. Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Center of International Law.
Eberlein, B. and Radaelli, C.M., 2010. Mechanisms of conflict management in EU regulatory policy. Public Administration, 88(3), pp.782-799.
European Commission. Notice to Importers, 1997. In Israel and the EU, eds. Pardo and Peters, p.p. 376-377.
European Council. 2002a. European Council Declaration in the Middle East. Copenhagen European Council, 12-13. December 2002, Presidency Conclusions, Annex III
European Council. 2002b. Presidency conclusions. Serville European Council 21-22 June 2002
Falah, G.W., 2005. The geopolitics of ‘Enclavisation’and the demise of a two-stateSolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Third World Quarterly, 26(8), pp.1341-1372.
Farsakh, L., 2011. The one-state solution and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Palestinian challenges and prospects. The Middle East Journal, 65(1), pp.55-71.
Forst, R., 2012. The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice. Columbia University Press.
Fox, J. and Godement, F., 2009. A power audit of EU-China relations. ECFR, p.31.
Gordon, N. and Pardo, S., 2015. Normative power Europe and the power of the local. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(2), pp.416-427.
Gordon, N. and Perugini, N., 2016. The politics of human shielding: On the resignification of space and the constitution of civilians as shields in liberal wars. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(1), pp.168-187.
Hanieh, A., 2001. The Camp David Papers. Journal of Palestine Studies, 30(2), pp.75-97.
Harms, G. and Ferry, T.M., 2008. The Palestine-Israel conflict: a basic introduction. Pluto Pr.
Harpaz, G., 2012. The Dispute over the Sovereignty of Jerusalem: EU Policies and the Search for Internal Legal Coherence and Consistency with International Law. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(3), pp.451-482.
Hollis, R., 2015. The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1971–2013: In Pursuit of a Just Peace by Anders Persson (review). The Middle East Journal, 69(3), pp.469-471.
Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G., 2016. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford University Press.
Jaeger, D.A. and Paserman, M.D., 2008. The cycle of violence? An empirical analysis of fatalities in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The American Economic Review, 98(4), pp.1591-1604.
Jerska, A. 2013. Campaigning for Palestinian Rights in Europe. European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine.
Joachim, J. and Locher, B. eds., 2008. Transnational Activism in the UN and the EU: A Comparative Study. Routledge.
Kaufman, E., Salem, W. and Verhoeven, J., 2016. Bridging the divide: peacebuilding in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Kaya, T.Ö., 2015. The EU and the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict, 1971–2013: In Pursuit of a Just Peace, by A. Persson (New York, Lexington Books, 2014, ISBN 9780739192443); ix+ 195pp.,£ 51.95 hb.
Keukeleire, S. and Delreux, T., 2014. The foreign policy of the EU. Palgrave Macmillan.
Keukeleire, S. and Delreux, T., 2014. The foreign policy of the EU. Palgrave Macmillan.
Manners, I., 2010. As you like it: EU normative power in the European Neighbourhood Policy. In The European Neighbourhood Policy in Perspective (pp. 29-50). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Maurer, H. and Marchi, I., 2014. The Eu And The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
McCann, P. and Ortega-Argilés, R., 2015. Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to EU cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), pp.1291-1302.
Mingst, K.A. and Arreguín-Toft, I.M., 2013. Essentials of International Relations: Sixth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company.
Nicola Perugini and Nere Gordon, The Human Right to Dominate, Oxford University Press 2015, p.116.
O’Donnell, C.M., 2008. The EU, Israel and Hamas. London: Centre for European Reform.
Onuf, N.G., 2012. World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and international relations. Routledge.
Ophir, A., Givoni, M. and Ḥanafī, S. eds., 2009. The power of inclusive exclusion: anatomy of Israeli rule in the occupied Palestinian territories (pp. 15-30). New York: Zone Books.
Pantuliano, S., Mackintosh, K. and Elhawary, S., 2011. Counter-terrorism and humanitarian action. Policy.
Pardo, S. and Peters, J., 2009. Uneasy Neighbors: Israel and the EU. Lexington books.
Persson, A., 2013. Defining, securing and building a just peace: The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Doctoral dissertation, Lund University).
Raymond, D., 2011. Jewish diasporas and migrant settlers on the West Bank (Doctoral dissertation, Roskilde University & Danish Institute for International Studies).
Sagie, H., Morris, A., Rofè, Y., Orenstein, D.E. and Groner, E., 2013. Cross-cultural perceptions of ecosystem services: A social inquiry on both sides of the Israeli–Jordanian border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. Journal of Arid Environments, 97, pp.38-48.
Sasse, G., 2008. The European neighbourhood policy: Conditionality revisited for the EU’s Eastern neighbours. Europe-Asia Studies, 60(2), pp.295-316.
Sayigh, R., 2008. Palestinians from peasants to revolutionaries. Zed Books.
Schimmelfennig, F. and Thomas, D.C., 2009. Normative institutionalism and EU foreign policy in comparative perspective. International Politics, 46(4), pp.491-504.
Shamas, C. 2014. Europe and the Settlements.
Shamay-Tsoory, S.G., Abu-Akel, A., Palgi, S., Sulieman, R., Fischer-Shofty, M., Levkovitz, Y. and Decety, J., 2013. Giving peace a chance: oxytocin increases empathy to pain in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(12), pp.3139-3144.
Shikaki, K., 2009. Willing to compromise: Palestinian public opinion and the peace process. DIANE Publishing.
Simão, L. and Freire, M.R., 2008. The EU’s Neighborhood Policy and the South Caucasus: Unfolding New Patterns of Cooperation. Caucasian Review of International Affairs, 2(4), pp.47-61.
Simmons, B.A., 2009. Mobilizing for human rights: international law in domestic politics. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, K.E., 2013. EU foreign policy in a changing world. John Wiley & Sons.
Steinberg, G.M., 2011. The politics of NGOs, human rights and the Arab-Israel conflict. Israel Studies, 16(2), pp.24-54.
Steinberg, G.M., 2016. EU Foreign Policy and the Role of NGOs: The Arab-Israeli Conflict as a Case Study. European Foreign Affairs Review, 21(2), pp.251-268.
Tocci, N., 2009. Firm in rhetoric, compromising in reality: The EU in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Ethnopolitics, 8(3-4), pp.387-401.
Voltolini, B. and Eising, R., 2016. framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: case study and process-tracing methods. European Political Science.
Voltolini, B., 2012. The role of non-state actors in EU policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. EU institute for security studies.
Voltolini, B., 2015. Non-state actors and framing processes in EU foreign policy: The case of EU–Israel relations. Journal of European Public Policy, pp.1-18.
Wallace, H., Pollack, M.A. and Young, A.R. eds., 2015. Policy-making in the EU. Oxford University Press, USA.
Weizman, E., 2006. Hollow land: Israel’s architecture of occupation. London and New York Verso Books, pp.111.
Zuhur, S., 2009. Gaza, Israel, Hamas and the lost calm of operation cast lead. Middle East Policy, 16(1), pp.40-52.
