In the coming weeks we will commemorate the eviction and killings of Jews from Austria and especially from Vienna 600 years ago, in 1421 (The Sir Peter Ustinov Institute will hold a digital event on this topic on the 4th of March). Such cruel acts of predominantly Christian antisemitism did not occur only in 1421 and not only in Austria. Jews were discriminated against all over Europe for many centuries, way before the climax of antisemitism – the Holocaust – when they were murdered on an industrial scale. They were often seen and treated as second-class citizens or even worse: as nuisance.
Jews, Christians and Arabs
It was Muslim countries who often offered Jews protection and a new home. This was the case when Muslims and (!) Jews were expelled from Spain after the „Reconquista“ and when they found refuge in Morocco. As Bashir Bashir and Leila Farsakh write in the introduction to their recently published The Arab and Jewish Questions: „It is the conquest of Spain and Portugal that led to forced conversions and expulsion of Jews and Muslims; tens of thousands of Jews were given refuge in Muslim North Africa and the Ottoman Empire“.
That does not mean that Jews were treated as equals in Arab/Muslim countries. They often had to pay special taxes and live in specially designated areas. However, they were overall better treated and respected than in Christian countries. The euphemism practiced by many Europeans who still today appeal to a long tradition of „our Judeo-Christian civilization” disperses a lot of fog upon the long periods of persecution of Jews, even before the Holocaust.
Old Europe - and the responsibility of New Europe
Antisemitism – mainly spread by the majority of the Catholic/Christian clergy – was an important part of the general discrimination against non-Catholic/Christian minorities. Societies should be clean and pure. Baptizing was offered as a way of acceptance and sometimes integration, but those who resisted to change their religious beliefs had to bear the consequences. That was the Old Europe, with its antisemitism and many other prejudices, which in consequence led to the extermination policy of Nazi Germany – for Jews, but also Roma and Sinti, mentally handicapped and others. The New Europe should be different. Minorities should no longer be the disturbing and annoying „other“ but an accepted part of the European society. That should be particularly true for the Jews. As the former president of the EU Commission, Romano Prodi expressed it: „The European idea was based on the firm determination to make sure the Europe of the future would be different – a Europe of peace, tolerance, and respect for human rights.“
However, not all Jews could trust the willingness or readiness of Europe to strictly adhere to this new philosophy. Many decided to emigrate towards Palestine in order to create a state of their own. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 laid the ground for the foundation of Israel. Thirty years later, a UN resolution gave the green light – formally and legally – to the process of establishment of the state of Israel, but also of a second state: Palestine! Already between the two world wars the question how to organize Jewish life in an Arab environment became virulent. Some people – on both sides – argued, one could and should build upon the peaceful coexistence of indigenous Jews and Arabs. But with the increasing number of Jewish immigrants, Arabs saw themselves as a helpless minority. They saw the Jews as colonizers, in addition to and following the fall of the Ottoman and British colonial powers. The readiness of the Jewish newcomers to share land and power with Arabs decreased over time. What is in this respect important is the perception - not only by the Palestinians, but Arabs in general - of the Jewish immigrants as a new colonial power. This perception is further reinforced by continuing land grabs and extension of colonization until today.
In Europe, which due to its antisemitic attitude and activities, such as numerous pogroms, is responsible for pushing Jews into Palestine, this colonial aspect of founding Israel was and is still disregarded. Some colonial powers like France, who gave Jews in their colony Algeria a special status, were proud of their tolerance vis-à-vis Jews – forgetting the maltreatment of Jews during the Vichy era – and did not reflect on their cruel and unjustified colonial attitude and behavior towards the Arab subjects in their colonies.
Europe exported the “Jewish question“ to Palestine and had and often still turns a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians. In spite of the statements made by President Prodi and many other solemn declarations, the “New Europe” is rather weak in demanding respect for human rights of the Palestinians. Brian Klug in his article „New Europe, the Jewish State and the Palestinian Question“ argues that the Jewish question has always been a European question, insofar as Europe in search for its identity rejected and discriminated against Jews. „In the old Europe, Jews paid the ultimate price for this question with the Shoah. As the Shoah led to the Nakba, the cost was transferred to the Palestinians. Now, the Palestinians are paying the price again. They pay twice: once for Jews being the stigmatized Other and a second time for Jews being the valorized Other.“
Out of this comes a special responsibility of Europe, which the European Union should fulfill. The European Union which includes former colonial powers and countries which have a long and ugly history of discriminating, expelling and killing Jews cannot leave it by supporting Israel. The New Europe must also care for the fate of Palestinians who suffer indirectly because of the crimes of Old Europe.
Antisemitism and criticism of Israel
Furthermore, individuals and organizations that criticize Israel for its policies towards Palestinians in stronger than diplomatic words, are readily labeled in Europe as antisemitic and sometimes banned from public activities. In this respect, some governments and parliaments are harsher in their rejection of criticism of Israel than the widely accepted definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It is absolutely necessary that Europe, as “New Europe”, fights antisemitism. Especially if it is part of a general policy of defending multiethnic and multicultural societies built on respect for human rights and equality of all men and women. In this respect, the European Union - with all its weaknesses – is by far the strongest supporter for these basic rights, also in the Middle East. That is what has annoyed Israeli governments and especially the long-standing Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is him, who is encouraging European politicians to characterize any criticism of Israel as antisemitic.
Europe should strictly stick to the definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.“ But the declaration also makes it clear, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic!
The special problem with evaluating Israel‘s policy arises with the continuing settlements. Already the immigration into Palestine and the Nakba cannot be regarded and analyzed without its colonial aspects. But the fact is that Europe in general and the former colonial powers like France and Great Britain in particular, did not develop the necessary self-critical attitude concerning their colonial policies that is necessary to understand the Palestinian fate. As Germany was trying to compensate the horrific actions of the Nazi regime and, rightly, strongly supported the foundation of Israel, the colonial aspects and the suffering by the Arabs were overlooked. The long, slow and hurtful recognition process of colonial crimes committed by European powers is a proof of the hesitation to accept this dark side of the Old Europe in contrast to the discrimination and killings of Jews. Thus, it is no surprise that the New Europe is relatively soft concerning human rights violations by Israeli authorities.
Recently, Amira Haas wrote an interesting commentary for the Haaretz newspaper titled “The Europeans Don’t Really Care About the Palestinians Either”. She notes that ”Only painful political and economic sanctions imposed by Europe will teach the Israeli Jewish public that it cannot have the best of both worlds: to receive unconditional support as “the eternal collective victim and survivor of the expulsion and genocide project carried out in Europe in the 1930s and ‘40s, while also engineering an expulsion that seems to have no end.” I will not judge here if such sanctions should be implemented or not, but it is clear that they will not be imposed by the New Europe which is represented by the European Union.
In this respect, it is symptomatic that the success of the Israeli vaccination policy is widely praised in Europe, but Israel’s lack of support for widespread vaccinations of the Palestinians is hardly mentioned. Instead, Israel is using the surplus of vaccines to engage in vaccination diplomacy. Countries and governments which are supporting the Israeli position vis-à-vis Palestine are getting vaccines by Prime minister Netanyahu - and it seems even without legal basis. Palestinians receive the vaccine in small numbers and Israel gives it with reluctance. The jabs are also primarily given to those who work in Israel.
And the Abraham Accords?
Former US President Donald Trump did not have a comprehensive and forward-looking Middle East policy. His closest friend was Prime minister Netanyahu, in addition to the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman from Saudi Arabia. His clear enemy was Iran. With different - predominantly economic and military offers - he convinced some Arab countries to establish official diplomatic relations with Israel. These new agreements were called peace agreements, but these countries were in peace with Israel and had had many contacts also before the new „Abraham accords“. Many Palestinians rightly perceived this development as a clear deviation from the former Arab peace initiatives which offered recognition and support for Israel in exchange for implementing a two-state solution. Indeed, there is no clause in the Abraham Accords that requires from Israel an active policy of improving lives of the Palestinians.
Israel keeps avoiding to give an answer on how to solve the Palestinian issue. Most of Israel’s politicians reject a two-state solution and they are horrified by the one-state solution. But the conflict will not go away. Especially the younger generation of Palestinians will not forever accept that basic rights are denied to them. The Abraham Accords could bring a new momentum into the Palestinian issue, if Arab countries would be engaged in trying to offer ideas how to solve the Palestinian issue - a frank Dialogue with Israel. To be actively engaged in looking for peaceful solutions and putting some pressure on Israel, the Arab countries could also reduce the Iranian influence amidst the Palestinians. Such a sophisticated strategy, in addition to the preparedness against military actions by Iran or its proxies, would be a valuable contribution to peace in the Middle East.
As we saw, historically, Arabs and Jews, or Muslims and Jews have not been enemies or fought each other for centuries. Their coexistence in different Arab countries was not always a honeymoon. But often it was much more peaceful than the fragile coexistence in Old Europe. Unfortunately, many of the Arab countries, predominantly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are strongly business oriented and mainly concerned with the growing influence of Iran. Some also fear rising activities of their Shia communities. And all fear revolutionary movements, especially the Muslim Brothers. This is the basis for an Israeli - Arab alliance, promoted by the US under President Trump. The Palestinian question is not much on their agenda.
Unfortunately, many actions by Iran and its proxies are helping to bring Israel and Arab countries closer to each other and to form an anti-Iran alliance. This fight for zones of influence results in many victims and keeps the region in an unstable and fragile situation. If Iran really would like to support the Palestinians, it would have to stop its aggressive rhetoric and activities against Israel and try to prevent Lebanon from becoming a hopelessly failed state. One purpose for the JCPOA was also to give Iran a chance to become a responsible power in the Middle East. President Trump, by canceling the nuclear agreement, made it impossible to evaluate if Iran was ready to move in this direction. Let us hope it is not too late.
A New Europe and a New US in an Old Middle East
US President Joseph Biden tries to develop a more balanced policy. He wants to come back to the JCPOA, but he will not accept violent attacks by “Iranian” forces. On the other hand, he made it clear to Saudi Arabia that killings like that of Jamal Khashoggi cannot be left unanswered and unpunished. Biden is no uncritical supporter of the present Israeli government and he already resumed relations with the Palestinian Authority. Such a balanced policy by the US would also be a basis for closer cooperation between the US and the EU in the Middle East.
The New Europe is one where narrow and especially ethnic nationalism is seen as a relic of the past and something which must be overcome. Even if we see many backlashes and political movements contradicting and challenging the aspirations of the New Europe, the ideological basis is still valid. Neither Israel nor the Arab countries are committed to similar principles. Israel has recently made a step back by explicitly declaring itself as the ”State of the Jews”. Even recognizing and accepting the special founding principles of Israel, this is an unacceptable restriction of and for its Arab population.
This is very strongly criticized by intellectuals from Avraham Burg to Omri Boehm, who in a recent interview made the following comparison: “German intellectuals would never accept that I as a German Jew, would have the same status in Germany as Palestinian citizens have in a Jewish state. They would reject such a status as racist. If you claim Israel has the right to be a Jewish state, then Germany would have the right to be a Christian and German ethnic state.” Also, many representatives of the civil society protested against the proposed law when it was discussed in the Knesset. But the majority in the Israeli Parliament decided to disregard national and international arguments against this undermining of the concept of a liberal democracy.
Also, within the Arab states, some of which were renewing or starting diplomatic relations, there is no liberal democracy defining the relationship between state and citizens. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain ”avoided” any revolutionary challenge which could lead to more democracy. Arab revolutions, even where they took place, like in Egypt could not achieve a lasting effect. The Egyptian President Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi has established a dictatorship which, some say, is even worse than that of former President Hosni Mubarak. Tunisia is an exception insofar, as the revolution had some visible effect, but this is always in danger of collapsing due to the weak economy and high unemployment. Morocco on the far end of the Arab world could play a more active role, as in spite of many Jews emigrating from there, several of them stayed and even those who emigrated to Israel had often close relations to the homeland of their families.
At the beginning of 2021, we have a New Europe which, unfortunately, was not much engaged in an active Middle East policy in the last years. Of course, the war in Syria and Trump’s one-sided policy for Israel and Saudi Arabia and against Iran made it not easy for the European Union. But now we have a New US with a more balanced policy by President Biden. Europe has a renewed chance to fulfill its special responsibility towards Israel and Palestine.
Unfortunately, a New Middle East is still missing from this picture. There is no perspective in sight for a new and peaceful order in the Middle East. Only a few countries – primarily smaller ones, like Kuwait and Oman – are oriented towards a comprehensive dialogue. One important element of such a new peace order in the Middle East would be a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. But this goes beyond this blog. On March, 15th the IIP will deal with this issue in an online event, where we will try to find possible paths towards such a demilitarized nuclear zones.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.