Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The EU's New Approach To the Two-State Solution in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Paradigm Shift or PR Exercise?


The EU's consistent policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been that Israel's presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip (prior to the 2005 disengagement) and the Golan Heights is subject to the laws of belligerent occupation, that any purported Israeli annexation is illegal and null and void, that Israel's settlements in the Territories are in breach of public international law and constitute a serious obstacle to peace, and that Israel and Palestine should settle their conflict on the basis of public international law and through the two-state solution. In recent years the EU attempted to concretize this policy through its trade and trade-related agreements with Israel, withholding the benefits of EU-Israeli co-operation from companies and research institutions based in the Territories or operating therein, as well as from products produced therein (the New Approach). Thus, from the EU perception, the New Approach towards the long-standing conflict and its reliance on international law may be seen as an instrument to reinforce internal and external legitimacy, buttress identity cohesiveness and as a manifestation of its more robust effectiveness. But this article seeks to conduct a more careful and balanced analysis of the New Approach and in doing so to reveal that the EU's (almost) exclusive focus on non-governmental entities, such as corporations situated in the Territories, and on Territories’ products, is misplaced in terms of public international law and effectiveness. The New Approach's deficiencies, in abstracto and in concreto, as evaluated in this article, are likely to prevent it from serving as a paradigm shift in EU-Israel relations.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

N. Tocci , ‘Firm in Rhetoric, Compromising in Reality: The EU in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict’, (2009) 8 Ethnopolitics 387

E. Zimmerman , W. Glänzel and J. Bar-Ilan , ‘Scholarly Collaboration between Europe and Israel: a Scientometric Examination of a Changing Landscape’, (2009) 78 (3) Scientometrics 427

I. Manners , ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, (2002) 40 Journal of Common Market Studies 235

L. Bartels , ‘The EU's Human Rights Obligations in Relation to Policies with Extraterritorial Effects’, (2014) 25 EJIL 1071

D. Kretzmer , ‘The Laws of Belligerent Occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel’, (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross 207

G. Harpaz and Y. Shany , ‘The Israel Supreme Court and the Incremental Expansion of the Scope of Discretion under Belligerent Occupation Law’, (2010) 43 (3) Israel Law Review 514

P. Hille and C. Knil , ‘“It's the Bureaucracy, Stupid” The Implementation of the Acquis Communautaire in EU Candidate Countries, 1999–2003’, (2006) 7 (4) European Union Politics 531

G. Harpaz and A. Shamis , ‘Normative Europe and the State of Israel: An Illegitimate Eurotopia?’, (2010) 48 (3) Journal of Common Market Studies 579

L. Aggestam , ‘Introduction: Ethical Power Europe?’, (2008) 84 International Affairs 1

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Leiden Journal of International Law
  • ISSN: 0922-1565
  • EISSN: 1478-9698
  • URL: /core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 16 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 57 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 17th April 2017 - 21st July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.