Analysis of the EU’s Report: “Implementation of the European Neighborhood
Policy in Israel Progress in 2014 and Recommendations for Actions”

NGO Monitor
May 18, 2015
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/analysis_of_the_eu_s_report_implementation_of_the_european_neighborhood_policy_in_israel_progress_in_and_recommendations_for_actions_

On March 25, 2015, the European External Action Service (the EU’s diplomatic
service) released a progress report on the European Neighborhood Policy
vis-à-vis Israel in 2014 (covering the 2014 calendar year). In December
2014, as a member of Israeli civil society, NGO Monitor provided a
“Submission to the European External Action Service Country Report on
Israel,” discussing fundamental problems with previous reports and
highlighting several issues that should be addressed in the forthcoming
publication.

In NGO Monitor’s assessment, the 2014 ENP Report shows improvement with
regards to overly simplistic, homogenous perception of minorities in Israel
contained in previous ENP updates. In 2014, the EU also provided a more
proportionate discussion of the complexities of the Israeli environment in
dealing with EU-related issues.

NGO Monitor also notes the ENP’s inclusion of language praising “the
vitality of Israeli democracy,” (page 5) referring to Israel’s internal
democratic processes that prevented restrictive parliamentary proposals from
impinging on Israeli democracy.

However, these changes are overshadowed by the EU’s continuing dependence on
material provided by a narrow group of political advocacy NGOs, often funded
by the EU and European governments, resulting in a distorted approach and
affecting the report’s content and credibility. The following brief analysis
examines the impact of the reliance on these NGOs, including omissions in
the ENP report.

Reliance on highly political Israeli, Palestinian, and international NGOs

In our submission to the EU in advance of the 2014 ENP Report on Israel, NGO
Monitor emphasized the negative impact of uncritical reliance on claims and
allegations proffered by marginal political Israeli, Palestinian, and
international NGOs. Many of the NGOs that influence EU policymaking falsely
portray Israel’s self-defense measures, and make unverifiable claims,
distorting international law, and fueling international delegitimization
campaigns against Israel. The narratives of these NGOs and their unverified
allegations should not be repeated without independent confirmation nor
substituted in place of data provided by official sources.

In addition, the 2014 ENP Progress report continues past years’ repetition
of NGOs rhetoric and assertions, for example, citing to the Israeli NGO
Gisha. Despite the problematic nature of this organization’s agenda and
claims, the allegations were repeated without independent corroboration.
Specifically, the ENP document repeats Gisha’s unverified allegations of
“reports” and “unofficial announcements” regarding the reduction of the
buffer zone around Gaza, and statistics on “the transfer of agricultural and
fishery products from Gaza to the West Bank” (page 10).

Beyond relying on NGO claims, the EU also cites the United Nations Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and its “Protection
Cluster” of marginal NGOs. OCHA and its NGO partners do not constitute an
independent nor reliable source of information or analysis.

Omissions in the 2014 ENP Report

On the Gaza conflict” July-August 2014
-The ENP report notes that there was “indiscriminate rocket fire from the
Gaza Strip,” (page 2) but, like the NGO network, notably omits the wider
context of the 2014 Gaza conflict, such as years of incessant rocket fire at
civilians in Southern Israel and the infiltration tunnels leading from Gaza
into Israel. There is also no mention Hamas’s repeated grave violations of
international law, including the use of UNRWA schools and facilities as
weapons depots and other military activities, which are essential factors
for understanding the reported “shelling of several schools of [UNRWA]”
(page 14).
-Reflecting a lack of independent research and verification mechanisms, the
EU repeats claims of “over 2100 [deaths] on the Palestinian side, of which
70% were civilian according to the United Nations (UN),” (page 2) and
acknowledging that “the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) claimed that no more
than 55% of the dead were civilians” (page 14). It fails to mention that the
figure of “70% civilians” originated with Hamas officials in Gaza, repeated
by NGOs and UN-OCHA, and refuted in detail in research by the Meir Amit
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.
-The ENP report notes Israel’s refusal “to cooperate with the UNHRC
Commission of Inquiry, heavily criticizing committee chairman William
Schabas” (page 5). However, the text omits the EU’s own accurate criticism:
the common EU statement to the UNHRC described the inquiry as having
“prejudged the findings even before it was formed” and the UN resolution
establishing it as “unbalanced.” Many political advocacy NGOs, some of which
are directly and indirectly funded by European governments, were active in
lobbying in support of the resolution – against the common EU position.

Religious Freedoms in Israel
-The ENP Report criticized limited access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem
during Ramadan, noting a “90% decrease in Palestinian worshippers at the
site” (page 16). The EU, reflecting the reliance on selective NGO reports,
did not mention that Ramadan overlapped with the Gaza conflict and
significant violence in Jerusalem, necessitating stronger security measures.
-The ENP Report failed to mention the October 30 attempted assassination and
severe wounding of Yehuda Glick, an Israeli who advocates for Jewish prayer
rights on the Temple Mount. This example is one of numerous instances where
violence against Jews was ignored or minimized as “violence against
settlers,” again reflecting dominant NGO biases.

Violence against Israeli civilians
•In discussing “increased tension between Jewish and Arab communities in
Israel” and noting that “Even excluding Operation Protective Edge, 2014 saw
the highest number of civilian deaths related to violent incidents and
terror attacks for many years,” (page 3) the EU provided specific examples
of “Price Tag” attacks such as an “anti-Arab graffiti on a mosque in
Fureidis” (page 5). In contrast, there are no specifics on the numerous
terror attacks against Jewish targets in 2014 or the perpetrators. Other
salient factors, such as widespread incitement to violence in Palestinian
society and the PA, are erased. ◦Notably absent was discussion of the
November 18 terrorist attack, when two Palestinian men from East Jerusalem
entered a synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem during morning
prayers and attacked the worshippers with axes and firearms. Four
worshippers were murdered and eight others wounded; a Druze police officer
was also killed.
◦Other attacks against Israeli civilians, such as several attacks near the
Jerusalem light rail and other details which were included in NGO Monitor’s
submission, were equally overlooked.


-The ENP report refers several times to the June 2014 abduction and murder
of three Israeli teenagers. However, the report does not identify the
perpetrators or their affiliation with Hamas. In contrast, the report notes
that “extremist Israelis” were responsible for the horrific revenge murder
of an Arab teenager in Jerusalem (page 14).
-The EU’s discussion of “Violence against settlers” in 2014 is problematic
in a number of ways: ◦The section titled “Israel’s Responsibilities in the
Occupied Territories” (see below), is framed by the statement that
“Settlements are illegal under international law [and] constitute an
obstacle to peace” (page 13). This context has the effect, if not the
intention, of minimizing the significance of violent attacks against these
Israeli civilians.
-OCHA is cited as the primary source for this data. As noted above, OCHA has
no credible methodology and its statistical analyses are unreliable. These
basic flaws also highlight the EU’s failure to consult official Israeli
sources.
◦Not all victims of attacks against Israeli civilians in the West Bank were
“settlers,” meaning Israelis who live over the 1949 Armistice line. For
instance, one of the victims, a father of five from Modiin who was traveling
to a Passover Seder, was murdered en route.)

Issues relating to the section on “Israel’s Responsibilities in the Occupied
Territories”

-Israel is singled out as the only ENP country that has a particular chapter
devoted to responsibilities under international law, including other ENP
countries involved in territorial disputes and/or armed conflicts. This
section, which deviates from the template of ENP Reports for other
countries, was added to the 2011 Report on Israel following significant
lobbying efforts from highly politicized NGOs, further demonstrating the
close dependency relationship between EU policy and these groups.

-In analyzing the situation in Gaza, the EU refers to smuggling tunnels
connecting Gaza to Egypt, as well as to Israeli control of movement in and
out of the territory. ◦NGO Monitor notes that discussion of smuggling
tunnels between Gaza and Egypt is irrelevant to the Israeli ENP report.
This information would be more relevant to the ENP reports on the
Palestinian Authority or Egypt, though it was not included in either.

-The report wrongfully identifies the “continuing Israeli restrictions” and
Egypt’s closure of the smuggling tunnels, which led to the “economic and
physical isolation of the Strip” as the “primary obstacle for long-term
economic development” of Gaza (page 16). This unsupported opinion does not
acknowledge the Hamas violent takeover of Gaza in 2007, the continuous
terror coming from Gaza, and the uncontrolled flow of arms into the Strip
which compelled the Israeli response in order to protect civilians from
attack.

-The report fails to address Israeli humanitarian commitment during the
military operations (the so-called “humanitarian windows,” i.e. cease-fires
repeatedly violated by Hamas, and the transport of civilians to in Israeli
hospitals) and after.

-Moreover, the EU ignores Hamas’ exploitation of humanitarian aid and
structures for military/terror purposes. Hamas built a network of tunnels
beneath the Gaza border with Israel, using humanitarian material meant to
assist civilians in Gaza, with the sole objective of carrying out attacks
within Israel.