How and why the New York Times frames the Middle East conflict in US government terms.

Another Israeli election looms, another round of indiscriminate killing of Palestinians, and the ‘global edition’ of the NYT carries not one but three stories all pushing ‘political’ solutions to the Palestinian question. There’s Jimmy Carter and Gro Harlem Brundtland warning that the ‘Two-State Solution is on the Line’ [1]; Yonatan Touval agreeing that it is ‘Time to impose a plan”, and Eran Yashiv talking about the political obstacles. The web page for that last article was entitled optimistically, if slightly ludicrously, “In Israeli conflict the end is clear but not the way” [3].

This political story has run for two generations. The only problem is… more negotiations needed! The US features prominently in this narrative and the rest of the world hardly at all. For the New York Times, it is almost as if we only need to get Jimmy Carter and Hilary Clinton to sit around a table and start talking to journalists for ‘chances of a settlement’ to rise.

Yet, curiously, almost no space is given for analysis of the conflict when seen as one rooted in practical human needs even though here is a quite different approach which has never been; tried, but which surely needs to be.

The fact is, as with most conflicts, the key to untying the Gordian knot of Palestine is in addressing the economic issues which underlie it. When you look at these elements – the problem takes on a much clearer shape.

Because if what is going on in Israel and the Occupied Territories is at root an economic conflict – then the solutions, too, have to come from economics, not politics. Take, for example, the buffer zone on the Gaza border. Israel set this up in 2005, using Palestinian land to do so, and since then (as the NYT acknowledges [4]) its security forces have killed 213 Palestinians near the fence, including, on Israel’s own account, 154 who were not taking part in hostilities, 17 of them children. Apologists for the country will ask what were these acknowledged ‘non combatants’ doing there? But of course they were just trying to exercise their basic economic rights.

These were people like Anwar Qudaih, 20, who was killed on November 22 when “emboldened by the new cease-fire, he took his four young daughters 300 yards east, to the small plot of land where he dreams of growing wheat as his father once did.”

The second point to recognise, for all that the blockade of Gaza was so carefully orchestrated by the US with its allies in the region, is that economic power rests not with the US, but with Europe. The EU is the first trading partner for Israel with total trade amounting to approximately €29.4 billion in 2011. Egypt by comparison, has about €23.5 billion. Not such a big difference. But Israel has a population of rather less than New York, of 7, 765 000, while Egypt has a population of 82, 536 000.

The basis for this trade is the EU – Israel legal framework document [5]. This says that the aim is to promote:

“through the expansion, inter alia, of trade in goods and services, the reciprocal liberalisation of the right of establishment, the further progressive liberalisation of public procurement, the free movement of capital and the intensification of cooperation in science and technology to promote the harmonious development of economic relations between the Community and Israel and thus to foster in the Community and in Israel the advance of economic activity, the improvement of living and employment conditions, and increased productivity and financial stability,”

It adds:

“Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.”

Remember, this is a legal document. How could it possibly be said that Israel is fulfilling its side of the bargain?

In contrast to Action Plans between the EU and other countries, the language of the EU-Israel Plan makes only a brief and general mention of human rights issues. One might suppose it to be a minimum, token mention. Nonetheless, the human rights clauses are there, and they are binding. Confirmation of this came, for example, in April 2007 from Eric Galvin, Task Manager for Human Rights and Civil Society at the European Commission Delegation in Tel Aviv. Addressing a seminar on EU-Israel relations in Ramallah [6], he accepted that Article 2 (the ‘Human Rights Article’) of the Association Agreement is binding and considered by the EU as an essential part of the agreement. Human right is supposed to be one of the pillars of the Union, after all. A sine qua non, as its classically trained Commissioners might say. And so, if a country violates this article, the EU could, he suggested:

- Ask for information and clarifications from the country regarding certain violations or situations on ground.

- Suspend the agreement.

Needless to say, the EU has not suspended the agreement but even more remarkably it has not even asked any questions. There has never even been a trade issue formally raised with Tel Aviv, despite obvious breaches such as the exporting of goods produced in settlements in the Occupied Territories cheerfully labelled as ‘Israeli’. There are instead numerous reasons put about as to why no action could be taken – from pragmatic (but unconvincing) arguments such as that EU trade gives the EU leverage, and disrupting it would simply lead Israel to trade more with other countries, to procedural ones such as that in order for an Association Agreement to be suspended, all 27 member states of the EU need to agree by a unanimous vote. Yet the agreement does not need to be suspended. It only needs the terms within it to be enforced.

Two generations of failed political initiatives show that the only thing that can be used as a lever to provide an impetus (that is otherwise not there) to Israel to seek a settlement, is this EU trade with Israel. This trade, of chemicals and machinery, but also things like those oranges and olives grown using Palestinian water, is conducted on special privileged terms, these justified by claims seemingly from another universe like: “The EU and Israel share the common values of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law and basic freedoms.” That is a quote direct from the EU/Israel Action Plan of 2004.

Thus there is no need to reach a political consensus, let alone unanimity to change the ball game. The law is quite clear. All that Europe needs to do is pull out the money plug, and the Israeli government will quickly rediscover the possibilities for a just peace that have ostensibly not been discernible for two generations.

Personally speaking, I don’t know if there is some legal argument that excludes Palestinians from consideration as legal entities when determining whether or not Israel is indeed extending respect for human rights and democratic principles to all those whose lives it controls, but if so, I’d be interested to see which governments are prepared to come out with it. It certainly seems, on the face of it, that only a dishonest conspiracy of misinformation, led from Eighth Avenue, enables Israel to continue to enjoy its trading privileges with Europe, and thus to continue its crushing economic war with its Palestinian ”buntustans”, and indeed many of its own Arab citizens.

Martin Cohen is an author specializing in philosophy, social science and politics.

A respected environmentalist, he wrote an influential series of articles in the Times Higher (London) about the politics of the climate change debate. He has written discussion papers on environmental concerns for the European Parliament and been invited by the Chinese government to discuss ecological rights and indigenous communities.

He is also the editor of THE PHILOSOPHER, a journal founded in 1923, which counts some of the best known names in Twentieth Century philosophy amongst its contributors. His editorial strategy is to allow as wide a range of ideas as possible a forum in the Journal, and this often prints papers by non-specialists with unusual and original ideas. He is currently based in Aquitaine, France, but travels often to the US and UK.