The EU’s aversion to supporting Palestinian rights

Mild, inconsequential rhetoric by EU Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg Andersen prompted another spat between the EU and Israel, following a routine meeting with diplomats in which criticism of the slated demolitions of Khan Al-Ahmar topped the agenda. In a puerile manner, Israel dismissed the EU as “obsessive” in its criticism of the settler-colonial state’s violations, despite common knowledge between both entities that nothing – apart from a concise summary of international law violations and obligations – were uttered by Andersen.

Having listed Israeli violations associated with demolitions and displacement, Andersen merely stated: “We therefore call on Israel, as the occupying power, to meet its obligations vis-à-vis the Palestinian population…to completely stop these demolitions and confiscations and allow full access of humanitarian assistance.” More noteworthy was the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s response as reported by Haaretz: “In Israel, illegal construction is dealt with according to the law.”

It is common knowledge that Israel’s legal foundations with regard to Palestinians are based upon deprivation, hence the convenient emphasis which Israel is able to place upon the issue of alleged illegality. Simultaneously, Israel has also managed to distort the value of such terminology and the blame for such aberrations must be placed upon the international community.

Read: Netanyahu will not freeze settlements in occupied Jerusalem

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 paved the way for Israel’s creation and subsequent international approval, despite the illegality of Zionist paramilitaries carrying out atrocities with the intent of establishing a settler-colonial state. Israel has so far escaped accountability, and will continue to do so, partly due to its narrative that absolved the colonial state since the initial massacres were carried out prior to its inception.

Distinguishing between the initial ethnic cleansing and the massacres carried out after Israel was established can be perceived as one of the first, tangible manipulations of violence which Israel has, throughout the decades, inflicted upon Palestinians. The international community’s acceptance of Israel at the expense of murdered and displaced Palestinians served to blur boundaries permanently, particularly as the reality of colonial violence is intentionally disregarded.

Similarly, the penchant for demolitions and Israel’s scheming about purported illegality demonstrates the double standards which have allowed colonialism to thrive. In turn, these double standards have been adopted by the EU, which deems it humane to construct dwellings for Palestinians that are also slated for demolition by Israel. There is no indication that the EU will abandon the exploitative cycle – by allocating a fraction of its budget with the aim of supporting human rights, it also manages to navigate the murkier details of its involvement with Israel’s colonial project.

Read: US-Israel settlement negotiations stall

Hence, Andersen can easily alternate between roles according to occasion. Depending upon urgency, the EU’s Ambassador to Israel can shift between spouting criticism of demolitions and appearing to show vestiges of support for Palestinians. Between these deceptively similar motives, the EU ensures that the purported displeasure at Israel’s belligerence is fragmented, dissociated from history and applicable only to actions which will take place regardless of international concern, condemnation and recommendation to abide by international law.

Andersen’s rhetoric should have been reversed, shifting focus upon supporting the Palestinian right to territory rather than extending the incessant lament about demolitions and achieving nothing in terms of advocating for Palestinian autonomy.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.