European response to the Israeli attacks on Lebanon
Much has been said about the recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon and blockade of that country, with the apparent intention of putting back the Lebanese economy by 20 years:
[Israeli] Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Dan Halutz said the Israeli military would “turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years” if the soldiers were not returned.
Here I intend to approach the subject from a point of view of European (and especially European Union) foreign policy.
The EU’s relations with its near neighbour are described in the European Neighbourhood Policy, which aims to encourage peace, democracy, trade and prosperity. For example, the EU’s website describes the EU/Lebanon Association Agreement as having these benefits for Europe:
For the European Union, the Agreement will promote new opportunities to market products and services,
And for Lebanon:
For Lebanon, the Association Agreement […] enables the country to open up to an international competitive market; moreover it is an important foundation to succeed its entry into an efficient economy.
Clearly Israel’s destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure and blockade of Lebanese ports and airspace does not further the EU’s goals of encouraging economic development in Lebanon or trade between Lebanon and the EU.
Furthermore the Israeli blockade of Lebanon’s ports is a direct challenge to European authority in the Mediterranean. The EU should regard the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum — “Our Sea” — and should aim to control what does and doesn’t happen there. it should do this because of the co-incidence of two factors: (1) the Mediterranean is in Europe’s “near abroad” and thus what happens there affects Europe, and (2) the EU has the economic and military clout to make what it says stick.
As a consequence, I suggest EU foreign ministers should meet and deliver a note to Israel worded roughly thus:
The European Union views with alarm recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, the destruction of life, property and infrastructure, and the Israeli air and sea blockades against that country. These actions are contrary to the EU’s policies as expressed in the EU/Lebanon Association Agreement and the European Neighbourhood Policy, and therefore represent action which is against the interests of the EU.If Israel continues its present course of action, the EU will therefore have no choice but to consider Israeli actions as hostile to the EU.
As a consequence, the EU requests that within 24 hours of the delivery of this note, the Israeli government do the following:
1. ceases military activity against Lebanon, particularly including bombing infrastructure targets of killing civilians.
2. ceases its air and sea blockade of Lebanon.
3. agrees to pay Lebanon compensation for the damage caused (the amount of compensation to be agreed by the Israeli and Lebanese governments, or if they cannot agree to be arbitrated by the EU).
If Israel chooses not to comply with this request, the EU will have to reconsider its policies towards Israel and other nations in the region. This reconsideration may include one or more of the following:
1. The ending of trade between Israel and the EU.
2. The EU may further choose not to trade with companies in third countries which continue to trade with Israel and to seize their assets (both physical property and intellectual property) in the EU.
3. If the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) see the above actions as against their rules, the EU will consider withdrawing from those organisations and will seek bilateral trade agreements with countries that wish to trade with it.
4. If the EU seeks an economic embargo of Israel, that embargo will be more effective if more countries join it. The EU anticipates that other countries may wish to join an embargo, including candidates for EU accession, countries with large Muslim populations, and countries wishing to negotiate good terms in bilateral trade agreements with the EU (see paragraph 3 above).
5. The purpose of an EU embargo of Israel would be to punish the Israeli government, not the Israeli people, many of whom disagree with the policies of their government. Therefore the EU may consider allowing all Israeli citizens to travel and seek work in the EU; in particular, skilled workers may be offered relocation packages to help them move to the EU. If large numbers of the most skilled Israelis — who are most important to the Israeli economy — choose to vote with their feet and leave Israel, it will put further pressure on Israel to comply with EU requests.
6. The EU may choose to deter future Israeli air attacks on those of its neighbours which Israel is in the habit of bombing. It could do so by selling these countries Europe’s most advanced surface-to-air missile systems, either at market value or at a discount. If as a consequence, Israeli aircraft are shot down, this would provide a boost for European arms sales to other countries, thus enhancing Europe’s arms industry and increasing high-tech exports.
Nothing in this note should be taken as meaning that the EU does not believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. However, sometimes Israel’s actions are grossly disproportionate, and sometimes this results in harm to European foreign policy objectives. When this happens, it would be imprudent for Israel to rely on Europe turning a blind eye.
If Europe sent a note along these lines, what would happen? Israel would have to consider how damaging a European trade embargo would be. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, amounting to 33% of Israeli exports and 40% of Israeli imports. So a trade embargo would bite, particularly if the EU could persuade other countries to join in. This would lead to rising unemployment in Israel, and if as a result many Israelis, including skilled workers, emigrated to Europe, the Israeli economy would be even more damaged. It is likely that foreign investment would be hit too. If Israel’s population was shrinking, and defence spending was static then defence would be taking up a larger and larger part of the economy, making the economic situation even worse. Eventually the existance of Israel might be called into question. While the consequences might not become that serious, it is likely that the Israeli government would view the prospect of an embargo with extreme alarm.
One factor which might counteract the seriousness of the embargo is the Americans. If the USA were to give additional subsidies to Israel to replace the shortfall of foreign exchange due to loss of Israel’s exports to the EU, this would reduce the severity of the embargo. Would the USA do this? It already subsidises Israel by several billion dollars a year, and with the money being spend on the Iraq war the perception in Washington may be that money is too tight to want to bail out the Israeli economy indefinitely.
Furthermore the USA and EU would be considering their relations with each other as well as with Israel. If the USA was to consider taking Israel’s side in this dispute, European governments might point to the number of European troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and point out the difficulty of the USA replacing them with Israeli troops if they think Israel is a better ally than Europe.
Israel would not want to back down, but nor would it want sanctions put up against it. In the end, it is likely that the Israeli government would go for a face-saving compromise if Europe offered one.
If the EU were to follow the policy I suggest, what would the outcome be? I suggest the following (all against a baseline of the EU tsking no action):
- It is likely that the level of violence and destruction in Lebanon would be reduced.
- Whether or not Israel called off its current operations in Lebanon, it is likely they would be more reluctant to engage in military adventures in the future.
- The EU would gain status in the Middle East; all countries in the region would regard the EU as someone to be reckoned with, and someone who cannot be annoyed with impunity.
- The EU would assert its authority in the Mediterranean; in future, countries would be reluctant to do anyything with would prevent the EU from trading along Mediterranean sea lanes.
- Sensible Arabs (particularly Palestinians) would notice that the EU is a lot more effective in stopping Israel than either Islamic fundamentalism or Baathism are. (Of course, it is not God’s fault that he hasn’t stopped the Israeli occupation of Palestine — how could He, given that He doesn’t exist?)
- Some Israelis will be thinking that Europe has betrayed them. Other Israelis will be wondering that if they are out of line with Western (i.e. European) values, can Israel be considered a part of the West?
Nice article! I agree with what you say in principle but it is, unfortunately, highly unlikely that the EU will do anything so bold.
Firstly there will never be consensus in the EU for such a move.
Secondly the Muslim state that wants to join the EU, Turkey, has very friendly relations with Israel (at the moment at least).
Thirdly when you yay “The EU should regard the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum  “Our Sea†” I agree totally but Europe hasn’t been in control of Mare Nostrum for years. The Mediterranean is patrolled by the US 6th Fleet; reinforced with 2,000 Marines.
If Europe did make the move you suggest, it would be punished by the USA. However, I do think there should be the threat of an EU trade embargo. Of course the main obsticle to that would be Tony Blair and possibly Angela Merkel. Still its worth a try.
Without getting into the desirability and legality of setting such a precedent – given that the conflict began with an incursion into Israel’s sovereign territory from within Lebanon – the EU has neither the political will nor the military muscle to issue and back up such a statement. Much easier to issue empty hand-wringing condemnations and not actually have to *do* anything.
Until the EU invests in some serious military capability, and deploys it appropriately, it will remain a bit-part player with an over-inflated view of its own importance on the world stage.
Yes, yes, all well and good but, as my local vicar might say, ‘in a very deep and meaningful sense’, who gives a flying fig what the EU thinks, not least because it is incapable of *doing* anything! Which, now I think about it, is a very good thing. We are faced with a terrorist campaign from militant Islamists and it is well to remember that in a fight the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Consequently, it is in our very best interests to keep Israel armed to the teeth and cheer it on when it pounds the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Incidentally, and not wishing to poach your readers (not that I could, I’m sure!) but I have just posted over at my place an open letter from an Arab who claims to represent an *increasing* body of opinion being expressed by Arabs in the Arab media. I leave it to experts to confirm or deny his claim but he certainly tells it the way it is.
David,
Firstly yes I agree that the EU isn’t going to do what I suggest. There isn’t consensus in the EU, as you say, and there are not really the mechanism for getting a common foreign policy, because at the moment it pretty much requires unanimity which gets more unsustainable the more countries that join the EU.
“””Secondly the Muslim state that wants to join the EU, Turkey, has very friendly relations with Israel (at the moment at least).”””
I think it is more Turkey’s generals than Turkey’s people that are friendly with Israel. In any case, Turkey has and desires better relations with the EU than with Israel.
“””Thirdly when you yay “The EU should regard the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum  “Our Sea††I agree totally but Europe hasn’t been in control of Mare Nostrum for years. The Mediterranean is patrolled by the US 6th Fleet; reinforced with 2,000 Marines.”””
Europe should regard the USA as basically an ally, since it comes from the same cultural background as Europe. However in extremis Europe should have the ability to sweep the Med clear of all hostile shipping; the best way of doing so would probably be a mixture of land-based aircraft firing anti-ship missiles, and diesel-electric submarines. The Med is a small sea and it would not be difficult for Europe to make to sweep it clear of hostile warships, particularly because there are only a few points at which ships can enter the sea.
“””If Europe did make the move you suggest, it would be punished by the USA.”””
How? I’m sure the USA wants European troops to continue to be in Iraq and Afganistan, to continue to have bases in Europe and to trade with Europe.
“””However, I do think there should be the threat of an EU trade embargo. Of course the main obsticle to that would be Tony Blair and possibly Angela Merkel.”””
The problem with Blair is he thinks he is Bush’s poodle instead of Britain’s leader. Hopefully future prime ministers will not make that mistake.
Infoholic,
I’m puzzled why you say the EU doesn’t have “the military muscle to … back up such a statement”. How much military muscle does a polity need to stop trading with someone (which is what I’m proposing)?
David,
You say:
“””Yes, yes, all well and good but, as my local vicar might say, ‘in a very deep and meaningful sense’, who gives a flying fig what the EU thinks, not least because it is incapable of *doing* anything!”””
My point exactly. It’s because the EU doesn’t do much that it isn’t taken as seriously in the world as it could be.
“””Which, now I think about it, is a very good thing. We are faced with a terrorist campaign from militant Islamists and it is well to remember that in a fight the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Consequently, it is in our very best interests to keep Israel armed to the teeth and cheer it on when it pounds the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah.”””
I disagree. I think that defeating militant Islam will primarily require a political rather than a military solution. Part of the solution should be for Europe to try to seduce Arab and Muslim opinion away from a model of politcal Islam and towards a model of European-style liberalism. In the long term the objective of Europe foreign policy should be to get everyone in the world to think like Europeans. Only then will be get a world free from the threat of major wars.
“””I have just posted over at my place an open letter from an Arab who claims to represent an *increasing* body of opinion being expressed by Arabs in the Arab media.”””
Everyone says that!
Ummm, Phil, you want to tell the Israelis you “consider their actions hostile” and NOT have military backup ?
Reckon I’ll try that down the local sink estate – “Young man, you appear to have a knife to my throat. I must warn you that I am considering a strongly worded letter to The Times…”
“Part of the solution should be for Europe to try to seduce Arab and Muslim opinion away from a model of politcal Islam and towards a model of European-style liberalism.”
As my old mother used to say, “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!”
And anyway, what right have you to “seduce” Arabs away from a culture and a polity that they have ‘enjoyed’ for centuries and inflict on them the entirely spurious benefits of so-called Western culture? Were you to actually show some Arabs from a small town in, say, Saudi, the Saturday night high jinks that go on in *every* small town in Britain and insist that they follow suit, they might be tempted to stick some Semtex where the sun don’t shine and I’m not sure I would disagree with them!
Infoholic wrote: “””Ummm, Phil, you want to tell the Israelis you “consider their actions hostile†and NOT have military backup?”””
Thank you for clarifying what you mean.
I don’t think Israel is going to make a military attack on any EU country (particularly not one that is in NATO as well, which most are). This is because the EU together has more planes and vastly more warships than Israel. (It also has more tanks and soldiers, but that’s less relevant because the EU and Israel don’t share a land border).
Israel has a small number of ports, and most of these face the Med, from which it would be easy for the EU to deny Israel sea access. The EU could also bomb Israeli ports and oil refineries with cruise missiles; Israel is dependent on imports for such things as food and fuel, and I’m sure they would have less ardour for a fight once they start running out of food.
David Duff: “””And anyway, what right have you to “seduce†Arabs away from a culture and a polity that they have ‘enjoyed’ for centuries and inflict on them the entirely spurious benefits of so-called Western culture?”””
Entirely spurious benefits such as free and fair elections, women being allowed to drive cars and have an independent life, people being (on the whole) allowed to do what they like as long as they don’t harm others, for example?
(Yes, I’m aware that European societies aren’t perfect, and they don’t fully live up to their own values either. But they are some of the most successful societies on earth, with high life expectancies, rates or literacy and further education, and arre overall prosperous. And with the EU, Europeans have changed their continent from being the most warlike into being the most pacific.)
If Arabs and others want to be more like Europe (and I’m sure many of them do), then this should be encouraged as much as possible. It’s not a matter of Europeans forcing them to be like us — that’s the difference between seduction and rape.
Arab societies — like all other societies — have changed enormously over the last 100 years. And they are bound to continue to change enormously. I do not think it is unrealistic to expect the triumph of liberal Western values worldwide. After all, these values have been on the ascendent worldwide for over 200 years — there is clearly a good deal of historical momentum in their favour.
All seems fair enough, but there does need to be some kind of solution for the random bombardment of Northern Israel…
Obviously the solution isn’t to bomb the hell out of arbitrary targets that may or may not be associated with the militants \ terrorists \ freedom fighters \ barbarian hordes.
EU sponsored peacekeepers (from somewhere Eastern European who ‘old Europe’ don’t mind seeing large casualties from) might allow us to save face and look like we would actually help the situation. Rather than giving both sides money \ trade in order to prolong a horrible situation.
I would like you all to sit back and savour this:
“After all, these values [western values] have been on the ascendent worldwide for over 200 years  there is clearly a good deal of historical momentum in their favour.”
So, in something like 10,000 years of roughly recorded history, a system of government that has evolved in just a tiny part of the globe and run for 200 years, is in “the ascendent”. And this constitutes “historical momentum in their favour”.
I would remind you of one of the few wise things ever uttered by one of our bigger and better mass murderers, Mao Tse Tung, who reckoned that he, too, had “historical inevitability” on his side, and when asked what influence he thought the French revolution had had on political developments, replied that it was too early to tell!
Is there anyone more il-liberal than a western liberal?
David,
I think the comments you attribute to Mao Zedong were actually spoken by Zhou Enlai.
Thank you, I stand corrected, but there again, they all look the bloomin’ same, don’t they?!
Malcolm,
Whether EU peacekeepers would be a good idea would depend on what their terms of reference were, and on the overall objectives. I would be against EU peacekeepers unless there was clarity on this.
David,
That was quick!
David Duff:
Is there anyone more il-liberal than a western liberal?
Strip out the wordplay, and that’s a pretty much meaningless statement, don’t you think?
I think the problem with Phil’s proposal is that Israel was actually provoked. The reaction has been totally, and scarily, disproportionate, and ultimately I suspect counterproductive when it succeeds only in radicalizing the Lebanese; but nonetheless, I think pretending Israel is 100% the aggressor here will only serve to annoy the Americans, further alienate the Israelis from Europe, and strengthen Hezbollah.
Not that I have a better solution to propose, admittedly.
I’m sorry but I don’t even understand why you would write a post like this. Do you seriously think any of this is either feasible or desirable? It’s neither. Might the note you suggest the EU pops into the post maybe spare some space to acknowledge that Israel’s enemies are not phantoms and that on this occasion they attacked first – much as you might deplore the Israeli response?
And the stuff on trade – where to begin? You say, “The EU may further choose not to trade with companies in third countries which continue to trade with Israel and to seize their assets (both physical property and intellectual property) in the EU” and then argue that if the WTO sees this as being against its rules (doh!) the EU should withdraw and replace these with a series of bilateral agreements only with countries that put hatred of Israel above any economic interests they might have? When the United States conducted similar measures in relation to countries that traded with Cuba, it was rightly denounced as unjust and an unreasonable use of American economic power. Yet you’re seriously suggesting the EU do something similar focused round hostility to Israel? Bizarre. No, bizarre isn’t the word.
Shuggy,
when you say that what I propose isn’t feasible, I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean the EU isn’t going to do it, I agree. If you mean the EU wouldn’t be able to do it even if it wanted to, I disagree.
Also I think you are seriously distorting what I say, for example:
“””the EU should withdraw and replace these with a series of bilateral agreements only with countries that put hatred of Israel above any economic interests they might have?”””
It’s not about hatred of Israel, it’s about dislike of Israeli policies and that those policies have effects in contradiction with what the EU is trying to do.
“””When the United States conducted similar measures in relation to countries that traded with Cuba, it was rightly denounced as unjust and an unreasonable use of American economic power.”””
The USA is morally entitled to trade or not trade with anyone it likes. I may criticise the USA embargo against Cuba in terms of its effectiveness, but I would never say the USA doesn’t have a right to do it.
“””Yet you’re seriously suggesting the EU do something similar focused round hostility to Israel?”””
Two points:
(1) Israel invades more countries and kills more people than Cuba.
(2) it’s about hostility to a country’s policies not hostility to a country. Big difference.
At this point I started laughing. The EU does not have the military clout to invade a whelk stall. Its individual countries do, but there has never been a signifigant EU military action.
Would you get a UN resolution before doing that, or would it just be another unilateral violation of “international law”? Isn’t killing and starving civilians “illegal collective punishment”?
And what do you do when Israel starts firing back? How many European and Israeli lives would you sacrifice to this mad scheme?
Including the US? That would be hilarious, if short-lived.
Peter,
“””The EU does not have the military clout to invade a whelk stall. Its individual countries do”””
This is an undercurrent of what I’m trying to say — that if the EU was able to act more united, it would have a bigger voice on the world stage.
“””Would you get a UN resolution before doing that, or would it just be another unilateral violation of “international lawâ€Â? Isn’t killing and starving civilians “illegal collective punishmentâ€Â?”””
Yes it is a violation of international law, in the same way that Israel’s actions are. I’m just pointing out that if Israel started a shooting war with the EU, the EU could make things very nasty in Israel very quickly. And the Israelis know it. As a consequence, I think it is very unlikely that Israel would attack the EU; generallly bullies only attack small defenceless targets like Lebanon or Syria.
“””And what do you do when Israel starts firing back? How many European and Israeli lives would you sacrifice to this mad scheme?”””
If i was running the EU, I wouldn’t start a war against anyone. But if someone attacked the EU, they would be made to suffer for it.
You proposed blockading Israel and arming its enemies, with an undercurrent of forcing Israelis to emigrate (this is normally called “ethnic cleansing”), while “considering their actions hostile”. On rereading you did indeed only propose the airstrikes as a counter action; but still the blockade is very nearly an act of war against Israel.
“if someone attacked the EU, they would be made to suffer for it.”
How is this in any way morally different from the statement “if someone attacked Israel, they would be made to suffer for it”? Isn’t that what is currently happening, given the rocket attacks from Lebanon on Israel?
I think, Peter, that Phil’s actually proposing the exact *opposite* of ethnic cleansing, whatever that word might be.
Phil – We agree that there’s no prospect of the EU doing this. We desagree only on the point as to whether it is desirable. Your ideas are a direct response to events in Lebanon? While we would not doubt disagree on a general analysis of the Middle East and Israel’s role in it in particular, I share your dismay at the present response over the air campaign in Lebanon.
However, have you considered what you are proposing? You seem to be arguing not only for the economic collective punishment of Israel but that to achieve this end the EU should seriously consider effectively dismatling the WTO? I don’t understand why you could think this was a good idea. I’m not one of those who decries ‘globalisation’ in the narrow sense that I believe the expansion of trade has been a net gain for the world. The EU has obviously been a part of this but most economic historians argue that this should be understood within the context of a world-wide reduction in protectionism and tariffs under the auspices of the WTO and its predecessor GATT, along with developments like the NAFTA. Obviously these have problems and injustices but they have much to do with protectionism in agriculture, which obviously affects Africa detrimentally, and the conditions that the apparently historically-illiterate IMF is disposed to imposing.
But the catastrophes of Africa and Russia in the post-Soviet period shouldn’t blind us to the fact that the expansion of trade overall represents a huge improvement in human welfare. The reason I didn’t understand your article is that you seemed to be suggesting this should be scraped in favour of a series of bilateral arrangements based around the attitude of various governments towards Israel. I think these are rather narrow criteria, to say no more than that.
In any event, even if this were all even possible, another thing I don’t understand is why you think an embargo would achieve the result you imagine it would. I sometimes wonder if the experience of sanctions against the RSA under apartheid has skewed everyone’s thinking with regards to the efficacy of sanctions? I think more attention should be paid to the history of Iraq here. The sanctions regime in this case was rightly criticised for effectively punishing the population while the regime survived with contemptuous ease. Yet it’s now being suggested that this should be attempted in Israel’s case?
We desagree
Or disagree, even…
I share your dismay at the present response over the air campaign in Lebanon.
I meant to say I share your dismay over the air campaign in Lebanon. Although the response from a number of different quarters dismays me too.
Peter,
I do not propose blockading Israel (i.e. using violence and threats thereof to physically prevent ships from tradong with israel), although it would be entirely moral for the EU to do so as that is what Israel has done against Lebanon.
Instead I propose economic sanctions (refusing to trade); these do not involve coercion. The purpose of sanctions is not to depopulate Israeli, it is to apply pressure on the Israeli government, so that Israel becomes a less militaristic country.
You also say:
“””How is this in any way morally different from the statement “if someone attacked Israel, they would be made to suffer for itâ€Â? Isn’t that what is currently happening, given the rocket attacks from Lebanon on Israel?”””
In a word: proportionality.
However, I do not consider arguments from morality to be a refutation of my original argument, which is based entirely in terms of Realpolitik, and asks the question “how can the EU best achieve its policy objectives, and gain the maximum ability to influence events in the Middle East?”; that my answer to this question may by some be considered immoral is not in itself relevant.
Shuggy:
“””Your ideas are a direct response to events in Lebanon?”””
Yes. And also of Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, de facto annexation of parts of it, and siege of Gaza.
“””You seem to be arguing not only for the economic collective punishment of Israel but that to achieve this end the EU should seriously consider effectively dismatling the WTO?”””
Regarding the WTO and WIPO, if they as institutions behave in ways incompatible with the EU’s objectives and policies, of course the EU should not continue to support them.
On the whole, I support free trade. Like you I disagree with rich countries’ protectionism of agriculture (which hurtsd them and everyone else).
I wouldn’t describe modern Africa as a “catastrophe”, but that’s a whole blog post in itself…
“””The reason I didn’t understand your article is that you seemed to be suggesting this should be scraped in favour of a series of bilateral arrangements based around the attitude of various governments towards Israel.”””
Based on that, and a *lot* of other factors. I don’t think the EU should get obsessed abouit punishing Israel.
Shuggy:
“””I don’t understand is why you think an embargo would achieve the result you imagine it would. I sometimes wonder if the experience of sanctions against the RSA under apartheid has skewed everyone’s thinking with regards to the efficacy of sanctions? I think more attention should be paid to the history of Iraq here. The sanctions regime in this case was rightly criticised for effectively punishing the population while the regime survived with contemptuous ease. Yet it’s now being suggested that this should be attempted in Israel’s case?”””
One difference is that in Israel the public can vote the government out if they don’t like its policies. The israeli government could overcome that obstacle by ending democracy and becoming a military dictatorship, but that would probably harm their country more than the EU sanctions would.
Another aspect is that Israelis be given the option of living and working in the EU. If this turns Israel into a ccountry of net emigration, withn most of the emigrants being skilled people in their 20s and 30s, it is likely to call into question the viability of Israel as a country, and for this reason any Israeli government would take it very seriously. (It also means that those who take up this option are not being punished, and they are likely to be disproportionately those who disagree wityh the Israeli govenrment’s policies.)
A third reason is if the EU starts talking about supplying Israel’s adversaries with modern weapons; if Europe started doing this, the military balance of power in the region would be asltered and the Israeli govenrment would be very concerned; possibly concerned enough to rethink those of its policies that Europe objected to.
nice article and i do agree with most of the points, but let’s be realistic. we are living in a world that human lives doesn’t worth a penny.of course when it comes to US and Israel this matter is differnt. EU has never done any action regarding this and never will…