Thursday, February 01, 2024

Europe Exposed: Is the EU a Direct Partner in the Israeli Genocide in Gaza?


 
 JANUARY 31, 2024
Facebook

Image by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona.

Europe stayed silent when Israel began pounding the besieged Gaza Strip with the kind of ferocity that could only lead to a genocide. In fact, Europe remained silent when the word ‘genocide’ quickly replaced the earlier reference to the ‘Israel-Hamas war’, starting on October 7.

Those familiar with Europe’s political discourse and action regarding Israel and Palestine, must already realize that most European governments have always been on the side of Israel.

However, if this is entirely true, what can we make of the latest comments by the Foreign Policy Chief of the European Union, Josep Borrell, when he seemed to lash out at Israel on January 23, accusing it of “seeding hate for generations”?

During a joint press conference in Brussels with Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Sameh Shoukry and EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Oliver Varhelyi, Borell said that “Israel cannot have the veto right to the self-determination of the Palestinian people.”

But is Borrell being genuine?

Borrell’s frustration with Tel Aviv stems from the realization that Israel does not take Europe seriously. He is right. Tel Aviv never truly saw Brussels as a strong and relevant political actor in comparison to Washington, or even London.

Recent months have further exposed this unequal relationship.

Soon after the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation, European leaders – starting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron – flocked to Tel Aviv to, in the words of Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, reiterate that “Israel has every right to defend itself”.

But European support exceeded that of language or political gestures. It also arrived in the form of military and intelligence support.

“As of Nov. 2, the German government has approved the export of close to 303 million euros’ ($323 million) worth of defense equipment to Israel,” Reuters reported, comparing the large sum to the 32 million euros’ worth of defense exports that were approved by Berlin in all of 2022. This is just one example.

While the Americans did not shy away from assuming the role of partner in the Gaza war, the EU’s position seemed dishonest and, at best, morally inconsistent. For example, an enthusiastic Macron wanted to establish an anti-ISIS-like military coalition to target Hamas, though leaders of Spain and Belgium jointly called for a permanent ceasefire during a press conference at the Egyptian Rafah border on November 24.

Borrell initially approached the genocidal war from an entirely pro-Israeli perspective. “I am not a lawyer,” he said when asked in an interview last November whether Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. A minute later, he asserted that Hamas’ Al-Aqsa Flood Operation was undoubtedly a war crime.

This is not a simple case of Western double-standards. Israel sees Europe as a lackey, though Europe, collectively, carries significant economic weight, which, only in the case of Israel, it refuses to translate into political leverage. Until Brussels learns to resolve this dichotomy, it will continue with this kind of bizarre foreign policy.

One reason why Israel sees Europe as an inferior political actor compared to Washington, is because the Europeans have linked much of their foreign policy agenda to the US which, in turn, is motivated by Tel Aviv’s agenda and interests.

This is how it works. When Macron joined Biden in unconditionally supporting Israel in the beginning of the war, Netanyahu remarked that he was “highly appreciative” of the French position. But when, on November 11, Macron dared criticize Israel’s killing of women and babies in Gaza, Netanyahu immediately lashed out, accusing Macron of making “a serious mistake factually and morally”.

Slowly, Europe began developing a somewhat stronger position on Gaza, though certainly not strong enough to demand an end to the war or threaten consequences if the war does not end. On January 22, the EU held a ministerial meeting, inviting Israel’s Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz and Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki to attend.

The conference was a feeble European attempt to signal the EU’s readiness to assert itself as a relevant political actor in the Middle East. The truth, however, is that the EU was motivated by other factors, including a greenlight from the Biden Administration, which, as of late has grown more frustrated with Netanyahu for refusing to engage in Washington’s discourse about future visions and the two-state solution.

Also, the regional instability, whether in the Red Sea or in Lebanon, itself a result of the war, continues to pose a direct risk to Europe’s economic and strategic interests in the region.

Europe’s relationship with the Middle East is, in some ways, different to that of Washington. While the US is always ready to reinvent its geopolitical priorities, Europe is indefinitely bound by the rules of physical proximity to the Middle East – its vital geography, its resources, and its people.

Europe knows this. Borrell, who devised the maxim that “Europe is a garden”, “the rest of the world is a jungle”, and the “jungle could invade the garden”, also understands that the instability of the Middle East could endanger his precious ‘garden’, even when the war is over.

This is why Borrell was keen on the EU’s ministerial meeting. But instead of engaging in serious talks, the meeting further highlighted Europe’s irrelevance, at least in the eyes of Israel.

Katz had come to the meeting to present plans for an artificial island off the coast of Gaza – likely to displace Palestinians from the Strip, “concepts that had nothing to do with the peace talks,” Borrell said.

Other top EU “diplomats said the videos were part of (old) ideas presented by Katz in a previous role,” and that they “surprised” everyone in the room.

But the EU diplomats should not be surprised, after all their governments are the ones who have empowered Israel and disempowered Palestinians over the years. Even now many of them continue to champion Israel’s mass killings in Gaza as Tel Aviv’s right to self defense.

If Borrell truly wishes to develop a political backbone, he should fully back international law, and advocate for the use of the EU’s massive economic leverage to put pressure on Israel to end its war and military occupation of Palestine.

Failing to do so, gives great credibility to the claim that Brussels, just like Washington, is a direct partner in the Israeli war on the Palestinian people.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

WW3.0 ARMAGEDDON

The Unthinkable Looms: Nuclear-Armed Israel is at War



 
 FEBRUARY 1, 2024
Facebook

Israeli nuclear whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu (center), meeting with Ali Kazak (left) and Bishop Riah Abu Assal in Jerusalem 2005. (Photo courtesy of Ali kazak/Wikimedia Commons)

The attack on Yemen by US, Britain and other forces is a dangerous escalation of the war in the Middle East. The attack is intended to halt the Houthi support for the people of Gaza that has taken the form of attacks on Israel-bound shipping. But as the Houthis have made clear, the attacks will not end their support for the Palestinians.

The only way to stop this unfolding and escalating conflict in the Middle East, is to stop the war on Gaza: to implement an immediate and permanent ceasefire and to ensure freedom and sovereignty for Palestine, as enshrined in UN resolutions and international law.

The alternative to this course of action is the further spread of war, to Yemen, Lebanon, and even to Iran. This is the most dangerous time for more than two decades in the Middle East and it clearly raises the spectre of nuclear weapons use.

Because not only is Israel heavily armed with the most up-to-date conventional weaponry, it is also heavily armed with nuclear weapons. Its nuclear arsenal, which it refuses to formally acknowledge — its policy of “nuclear ambiguity” — comes under no international controls or inspections. Yet it has an enormous killing capacity — and Israel is the only nuclear weapons state in the Middle East.

Recent rhetoric from a number of Israeli politicians suggests a willingness to use their nuclear weapons; if the conflict were to extend to Iran, who can say that Israel would not use its nuclear weapons on non-nuclear Iran?

So what does the Israeli nuclear arsenal look like? Israel’s lack of transparency means that figures are uncertain, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) outlines estimates between 90 and 300 nuclear weapons. Sipri also reports that since 2021, according to commercial satellite imagery, there has been significant construction taking place at the Negev Nuclear Research Centre near Dimona, in southern Israel.

Some may remember that the great Israeli nuclear whistle-blower, Mordechai Vanunu, worked as a technician at Dimona, before revealing details of the secret Israeli nuclear programme to the British press in 1986. The purpose of the recent works isn’t known.

Sipri information indicates that Israel has air, land and sea-based delivery systems for its nuclear arsenal. Bombs can be dropped from planes, either the F-161 or the F-15 aircraft, and are likely to be stored near air force bases such as Tel Nof airbase in central Israel, or Hatzerim air base in the Negev desert.

Reportedly, when Israel sent six F-16s from Tel Nof to Britain for an exercise in 2019, a US official referred to this as Israel’s “nuclear squadron.”

Israel’s nuclear weapons can also be launched on land-based Jericho ballistic missiles. The site of these missiles is thought to be the Sdot Micha air base near Zekharia, about 25 kilometres west of Jerusalem. And Israel also operates five German-built Dolphin-class diesel-electric submarines which operate from the port of Haifa on the Mediterranean coast. Some or all of these subs may have been equipped to launch a nuclear-armed cruise missile.

By any estimate, this is a formidable array of weapons of mass destruction and it gives Israel the capacity to inflict catastrophic damage on its neighbours. Of course the impact on Israel of any regional use would be considerable too, but there is absolutely no guarantee that would deter an Israeli government from nuclear use if it considered its existence was under threat.

How such a threat would be defined is also unknown. The fact remains that nuclear-weapons possession allows Israel to act with impunity, in Gaza, and in the wider region. And that possession is also impacting on how others are willing to relate to Israel.

Not only can Israel do damage with its up-to-date conventional weaponry, it is also heavily armed with nuclear weapons. (Photo of destruction in Gaza by Saleh Najm and Anas Sharif/Wikimedia Commons.)

The questions posed in a recent issue of New Left Review, are highly relevant: “Is the US, blackmailed by the threat of a Middle Eastern Armageddon, now forced to allow Israel to pursue ‘victory’ at any price? Does Israel’s capacity for nuclear war bestow on the Israeli radical right a sense of invincibility, as well as a confidence that they can dictate the terms of peace with or without the Americans, and certainly without the Palestinians?”

And what can be done about this? Both the US and Britain helped Israel to develop its nuclear weapons, against all international law. In 2005, it was revealed from Whitehall documents discovered at the National Archives, by BBC Newsnight investigators, that Britain had secretly supplied the 20 tons of heavy water to Israel nearly half a century before, which enabled it to make nuclear weapons.

Britain has known for decades about the Israeli nuclear arsenal, clearly supporting and condoning it, while taking an outraged and aggressive approach to the possibility of nuclear proliferation by other countries. The double standards and hypocrisy displayed by successive British governments is deplorable and is absolutely to be condemned.

Britain has supported numerous resolutions from the UN general assembly and security council, calling for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, without owning up to its role in Israeli nuclear proliferation.

Israeli nuclear weapons pose a particular risk to peace and security in the Middle East region and internationally; not surprisingly they are seen as a significant threat by neighbouring non-nuclear states, and the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the extending war is exactly the situation in which they are likely to be used.

There can be few clearer examples of how nuclear weapons are actually weapons of terror and weapons of impunity, as well as being weapons of mass slaughter and destruction. The war on Gaza must end; it must end with a ceasefire, and with peace and justice for the Palestinians. And it must end, to stop the unthinkable risk of a nuclear war in the Middle East.

This article first appeared in The Morning Star and in the CND magazine, Campaign.

Kate Hudson is the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).