Eli E. Hertz
Europe seeks to play the role of neutral mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet for a host of reasons – most of them self-serving – Europe has demonstrated a clear pro-Arab bias, including insensitivity to Israel’s security needs. And it excuses Arab terrorism that no civilized nation would ever tolerate if faced with similar attacks.
Ironically, much of the instability in the Middle East stems from the way Europe handled the region as colonial powers. Unlike nation-states in Europe, modern Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi nationalities did not evolve. They were arbitrarily created by colonial powers.
In 1919, in the wake of World War I, England and France carved up the former Ottoman Empire into geographic spheres of influence, dividing the Mideast into new political entities with new names and frontiers.
1
Some of the newly created states’ names came from classical antiquity, such as Syria and Palestine, while others were based on geographic designations, such as Jordan and Lebanon.
Territory was divided along map meridians without regard for traditional frontiers (i.e., geographic logic and sustainability) or the ethnic composition of indigenous populations.
2
The prevailing rationale behind these artificially created states was how they served the imperial and commercial needs of their
colonial masters. Iraq and Jordan, for instance, were created as emirates to reward the noble Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia for its loyalty to the British against the Ottoman Turks during World War I, under the leadership of Lawrence of Arabia. Iraq was given to Faisal in 1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, in 1922 Britain cut away 77 percent of their mandate over Palestine earmarked for the Jews and gave it to him, creating the
new country of Transjordan or Jordan, as it later was named.
The European nation-state model was ill suited to the structure of social organization indigenous to the Middle East where clans, tribes, ethnic groups, Islamic sects, and regional loyalties dominate social units. Much of the conflict in Arab states today reflects that reality, while anti-Zionism has become the glue that holds them together.
The manner in which European colonial powers carved out political entities with little regard to their ethnic composition not only leads to inter-ethnic violence, but also encouraged dictatorial rule as the only force capable of holding such entities together, according to Hebrew University Professor Shlomo Avineri.
3
That phenomenon also poses a stumbling block that to this day makes democratization a difficult objective to achieve. Against this backdrop, members of the EU want another chance to remold the
Middle East, including a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which the British were unable to resolve during 30 years of British Mandate rule. Even during that period, Great Britain’s track record was poor, conjuring up a series of so-called peace plans that attempted to appease the Arabs so that they would accept the
Jews. Today, the EU aims to solve the conflict at Israel’s expense for a host of self-serving reasons.
Europe’s claim that it can be an even-handed mediator does not hold water.
Besides a poor record in solving problems as colonial powers, member states of the EU would make poor facilitators in the Middle East for several reasons, including their dependence on Arab trade and Arab oil.
As an alliance of 27 western European nations, the EU has staked out a position as one of the four players of the so-called Quartet, which seeks “to promote a just, comprehensive, and lasting settlement of the Middle East conflict.”
4
The other Quartet members include the United States, Russia, and the United Nations, the last largely controlled by the Third World. Europeans and Jews share a host of cultural values and economic bonds, but the relationship is anomalous in that it includes a strong economic partnership and a weak political partnership.
Centuries of European antisemitism culminated in the Holocaust, made possible not only by the rise of Nazism in Germany, but by the acts of other European countries as well – acts of commission and omission. Two years after World War
II, European nations supported the UN plan calling for a Jewish state,
5
support that reflected both a sense of guilt toward the Jews, and national interests. Although every Arab state rejected Israel’s right to exist, Western Europe
6
forged diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. Britain and France even established strategic relations with Israel in the early 1950s when Britain sought to regain control over the Suez Canal from Egypt.
Europe and Israel share a host of enlightened values. Putting aside the role of Jews in Western culture, the EU and Israel logically ought to be natural partners, since Israel has developed into a vibrant, open free democracy much like the nations of western Europe.
Israel values and upholds freedom of the press and religion, and maintains a judicial system based on the rule of law just as EU member states do. Israel is also committed to human rights, including the rights of women, gays and lesbians, and minorities. For instance, if one examines infant mortality levels, a universally accepted yardstick of commitment to human rights used by the
United Nations, Israel has a lower infant mortality rate among its Arab minority than minorities in France, Britain and other European countries.
(continue)
Note:
Eli E. Hertz's 10-page article/research is well worth one's time to read in full.
