The EU’s Diplomatic Stance: Preventing Israeli Annexation of the West Bank Settlements and Jordan Valley
The European Union (EU) has recently taken a firm stance in support of the two-state solution, opposing the Israeli government's decision to annex West Bank settlements and the Jordan Valley. This position aligns with the majority of the international community's view. Let’s explore the reasoning behind the EU’s stance and the implications of annexation.
The International Community’s Opinion
The EU is simply following the majority of world opinion that the annexation of any part of the West Bank by Israel would create a major international incident. This stance presents great risks to peace in the Middle East and could have completely unacceptable consequences that cannot easily be qualified.
The Two-State Solution
The two-state solution remains the only viable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Over 90% of the members of the United Nations accept and respect this concept. Efforts to undermine it would end the possibility of a two-state solution, which has broadly been accepted by the global community.
International Law and UN Resolutions
Based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, and confirmed by the International Court of Justice, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements outside of the recognized borders of the State of Israel constitute a violation of international law. Essentially, this article forbids the occupation of a conquered territory in war, regardless of who started the war.
The 2016 Security Council resolution echoed this view, demanding that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The resolution further stressed that the establishment of settlements is “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation of international law.”
Israel’s Legitimacy in the Middle East
Israeli supporters often argue that the UN conventions are meaningless because they dislike the Jewish people. However, the fact remains that countries like the UK, New Zealand, Sweden, Italy, and France all voted for this resolution. It would be illogical to dismiss these positions based on a single opinion.
Israel has to take note of world opinion, whether they think these opinions are legally binding or not. The United Nations has unambiguously confirmed that the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem would be resolved through a future agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. No such agreement has been reached.
Palestinian Recognition and UN Resolutions
The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly stated that they accept the State of Israel within its present borders and accept UN resolutions regarding this. For instance, at the 1988 Palestinian National Council meeting in Algiers, they stated, “That the Palestinians 'accepted the existence of Israel as a state in the region.'” This position was reaffirmed in 1993 by Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat. In 2007, the Israelis and Palestinians jointly confirmed this at the Annapolis Conference. President Abbas further reconfirmed this at the World Economic Forum in 2013.
In response to the Palestinians accepting the right of Israel to exist within its present boundaries, the UN voted 136 to 9 to accept that Palestine was a de facto country aiming at a future legal Palestinian state, referring to it as “The State of Palestine” in all UN correspondence.
Rationalizing Annexation Arguments
Several arguments have been put forth for Israeli annexation, including the perceived need to establish a trip-wire to prevent an attack from Jordan through the Jordan Valley. However, these arguments are spurious. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994, ending the state of belligerency between the two countries. The Jordanian army is no longer a threat to Israel, and the geography and landscape make it highly unlikely for any nation to attack Israel through Jordan.
Additionally, the claim that Palestinians are terrorists is also spurious. While some Palestinians, notably Hamas, are indeed terrorists, they do not represent a majority opinion in the West Bank. Studies suggest that if Israel dropped all pretense of a Greater Israel and entered discussions on a two-state solution with the Palestinians, a majority of them would reasonably negotiate some creative adjustments to the present Israeli border to handle major Israeli settlements.
Conclusion
The EU’s diplomatic stance is a reminder that the majority of the international community holds the view that any effort to annex West Bank settlements and the Jordan Valley would undermine the possibility of a permanent peace. Israel should get off its hobbyhorse and act to establish a permanent peace to alleviate any contexts that relate anti-Israeli sentiments to anti-Jewish sentiments. Rushing things in another direction to get them done before President Trump leaves office in the United States would likely lead to unwelcome and unnecessary condemnations of Israel.
A cautious and diplomatic approach is necessary, as it would pave the way for a more stable and peaceful future. The global community, including the EU, will continue to support efforts towards a two-state solution and will not tolerate the annexation that could jeopardize the fragile balance in the region.