The International Dimension of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict by Huber Daniela;

Author:Huber, Daniela;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: State University of New York Press
Published: 2020-04-15T00:00:00+00:00

5.3.4. FROM 2011 UNTIL TODAY

The Russian role performance remains rather constant after the Arab uprisings, as initially does the US one. The European performance becomes increasingly unpronounced on the Palestine/Israel question—EU representatives at the UN define its identity through other issues.

Russia continues to see itself in a supporting role to the Quartet. As Russian foreign minister Lavrov pointed out in 2017 at the General Assembly, “Russia is ready to assist in any way possible was the resumption of direct talks between Israel and Palestine, and cooperate with Quartet partners and Arab League for this purpose” (Lavrov 2017). In 2018, Lavrov suggested that the “long-standing Palestinian question” must not be forgotten, warning against “unilateral approaches … or attempts to monopolize the peace process,” arguing for talks on “the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative,” and that “Russia will continue to do its utmost to facilitate the process, including within the Middle East Quartet and in cooperation with the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Mutually acceptable agreements must ensure the peaceful and safe coexistence of the two States of Israel and Palestine” (Lavrov 2018). Thus, Russia performed within the MEPP even as the US abandons it.

The representatives of the EU, in contrast, hardly mention the conflict anymore at the annual UNGA meetings, focusing on other topics, which might indicate that the EU increasingly does not define itself through its position on the Palestine/Israel question at the international level. In 2016, Donald Tusk focuses on refugees and terrorism (Tusk 2016); in 2017, on refugees, terrorism, and the Paris agreement (Tusk 2017). While EU representatives do not seem to define its role through the conflict any longer, EU member states in council conclusions or statements at the UN continue to insist on internationally established parameters (European Council 2016a; Permanent Mission of France to the UN in New York 2019).

Regarding the US, following the Arab uprisings, Obama, like his predecessors, highlights the deep friendship and unshakable US commitment to Israel’s security (Obama 2011), and portrays the Palestinians as friends with the legitimate right to live in security and dignity in their own sovereign state (Obama 2013) without mentioning a right to such a state. While the conflict remains undefined, the US continues to focus on negotiations as a basis for a Palestinian state rather than a right to statehood. The UN is seen mainly in terms of its supporting role for US-led negotiations and Obama insists on these negotiations, arguing that peace can be realized only through them, not through statements or UN resolutions (Obama 2011). President Trump decisively departs from this position—from a negotiations paradigm toward a coercive imposition paradigm. First, unlike Obama, he focuses more on Israel’s conflict with Iran rather than on Israel in the context of the Palestine/Israel question. This is, for example, evident in his first speech at the UNGA (Trump 2017). In 2018, he defines Israel as “proudly celebrating its seventieth anniversary as a thriving democracy in the

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.