In recent weeks, there seems to have been a mini revival in the EU’s interest in relations between Israel and the Palestinians. This has largely been prompted by its special representative for the Middle East peace process, Sven Koopmans, who last month visited Riyadh and met with Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Envoy for Climate Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir to discuss the elusive peace process. During his visit, Koopmans gave a wide-ranging interview to Arab News and followed this with an interesting, although rather disappointing, opinion piece for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. This raises the question: Does Brussels intend to take a more proactive stance in healing the relations between Israelis and Palestinians? Or is this more of a public relations exercise to conceal the guilty conscience of a political body that is trying to convince us of its relevance to the resolution of this conflict? Given the current circumstances, any talk of a peace process is at best wishful thinking and at worst disingenuous. The EU is not the only international body to have appointed an envoy to the process; however, none of these has a plan or clearly defined endgame, let alone the support of their political superiors and the courage to make the necessary moves that could bring peace. I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of Koopmans and all the other peace envoys or their desire to play a role in bringing about a resolution to one of the most intractable conflicts of modern times. However, at this present juncture, when everything points to a situation that is about to implode and another prolonged period of bloodshed appears to be on our doorstep, it is no longer about harboring good intentions, but a matter of translating these into a coherent and decisive policy. And the EU must be prepared to throw the full weight of its 27 member states behind such a policy. Koopmans justifiably expressed his support for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah, which has twice been re-endorsed in further Arab League summits. The heart of this initiative conditioned the normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel on the latter’s withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and its ensuring of a just settlement to the tragic predicament of Palestinian refugees that has dragged on for more than 70 years. There was also more than implied criticism of the Abraham Accords, which established normalization with Israel without ensuring any progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. As much as this might be the case, the Abraham Accords are most probably here to stay, while other countries in the region are unlikely to follow suit anytime soon. Hence, it is a matter of how the EU can help to utilize the accords to advance the cause of peace. Moreover, whether this critique is right or wrong, there is a measure of hypocrisy about an EU official criticizing other countries for normalizing relations with Israel when it is Brussels that has been rewarding Israel for decades with an array of very favorable trade, scientific and cultural agreements. This is despite the bloc’s criticism of Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and its entrenchment through the constant expansion of Jewish settlements there and the blockade of the Gaza Strip, which all amounts to the indefensible mass violation of millions of Palestinians’ human, political and civil rights. It would be unwise to argue with Koopmans’ assertion that relations between Israel and the region would never come to full fruition without a peace agreement that ensures equal security and rights for everyone in this conflict, but his argument that the same goes for relations between the EU and Israel holds no water, considering how extensive these relations are on almost every level. While the EU condemns Israel’s occupation and its ill treatment of the Palestinians, it at the same time rewards it Yossi Mekelberg Since 2000, EU-Israel trading relations have been governed by a free trade area agreement that accelerated trade to a figure of €31 billion ($31.4 billion) in 2020, making the EU Israel’s largest market, accounting for about a third of its total trade. Israel has also been part of the EU’s research and innovation framework programs since 1996 and its joining of Horizon 2020 in 2014 allowed it to access extremely generous research funds. I am not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that the EU necessarily needs to bring a halt to these close relations with Israel, but it could certainly exploit them in order to persuade Tel Aviv to stop expanding its West Bank settlements that are illegal according to international law and an obvious hindrance to peace. And it could make its view much clearer on the need to improve living conditions for Palestinians and to enter into a meaningful dialogue with the goal of ending the occupation. With the exception of the US, there is no other international actor that has established closer relations with Israel than the EU and this should be exploited to help both sides bring their conflict to a peaceful conclusion. It is incomprehensible, as was recently highlighted by a Council for Arab-British Understanding report, that the value of EU imports from the settlements is approximately 15 times the annual value of EU imports from the Palestinians. This clearly demonstrates that, while the EU condemns the occupation and its ill treatment of the Palestinians, it at the same time rewards it. Koopmans’ call for renewing the peace process should be welcomed but, as everyone in the international community knows, Israel and Palestine both have political systems that are in a state of flux and cannot create the necessary driving force to initiate such a complex initiative from within. Hence, there is the need for a concerted effort by the international community to ensure the EU plays a central role in initiating a process that sets clear objectives, deadlines and incentives that promote peace, or at the very least an improvement on the current situation, and which severely discourage those who would seek to undermine the chances of reaching a peace agreement. To this end, the EU should first recognize a Palestinian state with immediate effect and distinguish between how it deals with Israel proper and with the illegal settlements. Such a change in policy would send a clear message that the EU is aligning its policies, interests and declared values and is ready to come forward from the sidelines and play a central role in bringing peace to Israelis and Palestinians. • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg