Foreign Minister Yair Lapid headed to Brussels on Sunday, a day before his planned address to the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council, the first by an Israeli since Tzipi Livni gave one over a decade ago.
Lapid said on his first day in office that he wants to improve relations with the EU, Israel’s largest trading partner – and this is a big step in that direction.
On Lapid’s to-do list for Monday are several things: first of all, to try to meet individually with as many of the 27 foreign ministers as possible before he has to get back in time to vote in the Knesset on Monday afternoon.
Lapid also wants to push for a reconvening of the Israel-EU Association Council, a forum at the basis of diplomatic relations between the countries meant to ensure dialogue and improve ties between the parties. The council has not met since 2012, with some member states blocking it in protest over Operation Protective Edge in 2014, then settlements and other policies toward the Palestinians.
EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, however, has been in favor of restarting it for nearly a year.
There are also major partnerships with the EU that Lapid wants to promote, such as having Israel join the €1.46 billion Creative Europe culture and arts program, join the EuroPol for policing and security and also ensure that negotiations go well with Horizon Europe, the scientific research program in which Israel has long participated.
Those are some of Lapid’s concrete, quantifiable goals.
He has another aim in mind, however, which is more amorphous yet no less important to him: He wants to emphasize that Israel is a liberal democracy and align it with other liberal democracies in Europe.
But can Lapid’s focus on liberal friends in Europe give Israel the support it needs in Brussels?
THIS IS a shift for Israel’s foreign policy. While the Jewish state has always called itself a democracy and was the only one in the Middle East, former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought partnerships with some far-right European figures.
Foremost of those was Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the champion of “illiberal democracy” who has made major moves to consolidate his power during his time. But there were others in Central Europe as well.
The ties between Netanyahu and these leaders were based on some shared views – about migrants, radical Islam and terrorism, George Soros and more.
They also played a very practical and helpful role for Israel when it came to the EU, with Hungary and often others moving to veto any condemnations of or action against Israel.
Borrell came up with a convenient way of circumventing the effective veto power over critical statements by reading the condemnations aloud at press conferences and saying this is what the EU would have said if it weren’t for one or two states.
But more importantly, the EU Foreign Affairs Council could not take any kind of assertive action against Israel, such as banning settlement products, with those countries standing in the way.
Still, Lapid is not looking to be buddy-buddy with the Orban government or his ilk; in fact, he recently said there is no such thing as an “illiberal democracy.” Lapid is already buddies with French President Emmanuel Macron, for example.
But “the risk of apartheid” is strong in Israel, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned in May, which led the Foreign Ministry to reprimand the French ambassador to Israel just days before Lapid entered office.
Personal relationships have value in foreign affairs, but will they be enough to reverse the decades-long, highly critical French attitude toward Israel?
IT IS TRUE that some foreign leaders or politicians were happy to see Netanyahu go, and they are giving Lapid and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett a warm welcome.
But some of the other EU member states that are highly critical of Israel and push for harsher reprimands and action, such as Ireland, Belgium or Luxembourg, are unlikely to be impressed by the new government, even if Lapid knows all the right things to say to a liberal audience. They would likely need to see a real transformation of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians to budge, and this government is not likely to provide that.
With that reality, who will take up the role of Hungary and other Central European countries when it comes to Israel in the EU if Lapid cools or puts an end to Israel’s cultivation of those ties?
First of all, it is worth pointing out that some of these countries supported Israel even before Netanyahu started focusing on them. Also, Hungary’s stance is not just about Israel; Budapest is at odds with much of the EU, taking issue with French and German dominance, and it uses its veto power often.
Still, there will be a continued effort from Jerusalem to keep up ties with the more right-wing European governments, but it will come from Bennett, not Lapid.
The prime minister is “doing outreach with those we feel are strategically important,” a source close to Bennett said. In the month since he entered office, Bennett has spoken to the leaders of Hungary, Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic.
It would probably be too simplistic to say that Lapid and Bennett have split Europe up according to its political leanings. But Israel’s alliances of more recent years will not be left by the wayside while Lapid touts liberal values.
Ideally, Israel won’t need vetoes in the Foreign Affairs Council as often, but it will still have the option. Between Bennett’s and Lapid’s approaches, the Jewish state could end up with a more balanced situation in Europe, with strong EU-Israel partnerships.