New EU Member States' Policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: the Case of Poland

Key Findings:

• Poland’s policy towards the Middle East is comprised of two instruments: its military presence (Iraq, Afghanistan) and peacekeeping missions (South Lebanon and the Golan Heights), as well as development aid, which it has been deploying since its integration into the European Union. The Polish government identified the Palestinian Authority as one of its nine priority countries in terms of assistance and thus its policy responds to EU Council resolutions. However, its development assistance programme, remains a relatively small portion of the total EU contributions to the Palestinians.
• Poland maintains a policy of “equal distance” aspiring to keep good relations with both parties and appear as a neutral player. There is a belief among certain Polish policy-making circles that Poland can mediate between Israel and the Palestinians given its good relations with both parties, a lack of colonial past and the recent experience of structural transformation.
  
  

• Due to a common history with the Jewish people and a very complex and emotional relationship, Israel expects more of Poland than and any other EU members in terms of political support. Despite Poland’s desire to be ‘neutral’ towards the conflict, the most common perception among Israeli officials is that Poland is “Israel’s ambassador in the European Union”.

   

• For a very long time, new EU member states were ignored by the Palestinians, because of the Soviet bloc’s legacy of traditionally good relations, extensive commercial ties and political alliances with Arab states. Poland, along with other new members became of interest to the Palestinian Authority once it started leading an openly pro-American foreign policy. The Palestinian leadership’s fear was that it would translate into a pro-Israeli stance.

   

• However, not much interest is given to Poland alone as a player with its own agenda and policy in the region. Poland becomes of interest to the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority as a member of the European Union, able to influence Council Conclusions.

   

• Israel is well aware of the fact that the United States has more leverage over all the different players than any EU member state. So are the Palestinians. Both parties in the conflict seem to be solely interested in a greater role of a given country for Public Diplomacy purposes, in order to change other members’ positions and sway the overall balance in their favour.

   

• In terms of direct negotiations, the PLO and members of the Fatah-led government in the West Bank favour a greater involvement of the EU, but as a unified impartial body, translating its values grounded in international humanitarian law into policy as opposed to 27 separate and contradictory peace initiatives. The Israeli government in turn questions the added value of greater Polish involvement in trying to act as a mediator in the conflict.