On the 11-12/12/2006 the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The European Commission's Delegation to Israel along with the Center for International Communications and Policy at the Bar-Ilan University organized an international workshop on "Israel and the European Union in the Enlarged Neighbourhood".

The two-day international workshop aimed at studying and analysing the meaning and implementation of a 'reinforced partnership' in the context of the European Neighborhood Policy in several dimensions of EU-Israeli relations.

On the first day, the workshop paid special attention to the “Socio-Political Dimension” while the second day focused on “Learning the Lessons: Between Partnership and Membership”, examining possible institutional models and their ability to incorporate future Israeli-EU agreements into new legal and political developments.

11/12/2006 - Day I - The Socio-Political Dimension

Panel 1: The ENP through the Eyes of Israeli and European Civil Societies

The panelists focused mainly on the role of civil society in the relations between Israel and the EU and particularly in the framework of the ENP. All speakers agreed on the growing role of civil society in everyday life and that civil society organizations have already become significant players in society, though their voice is not heard enough. Therefore, it is crucial to ask for their view and take into account their ideas on the ENP Action Plan.

Comprehensive observations:

-A different approach to dialogue is needed, one which will emphasize the necessity of understanding the complexity of cultural identities, of looking at things from your own individual perspective while also learning from others.

-The Action Plan fails to recognize the civil society as a crucial subject of the agreements, apart from the PFP programs and programs which are dedicated especially to civil society. The EU and Israel have much in common: the concern of immigrants, women’s issues, and social rights issues that are at the top of the agenda of the EU and Israel’s civil society.

-The ENP has the potential to improve the activity of the civil society. Moreover, the advancement of the civil society should be a major principle in the Action Plan.

-In the future representatives of civil society should take part in the negotiation teams, in order to study the negotiated agreements and to consider how the civil society can be more involved in the other sections.

-Israel and the EU should have a stable strategy regarding the civil society’s involvement in these relations.

-Knowledge is necessary in order to formulate policy. Civil society is the least questioned and researched area and is one of the fields in which Israel can support some European countries.

-The young generation should play a larger role on the decision-making level. Youth NGOs representatives should be part of the Ministers Meetings.

-Bearing in mind the interest of cooperation and how much this integration has already affected daily life in Israel, there is still too little awareness of the EU among Israel society. As such, Israel should demonstrate its own approach, not only on the political level, but also on the question of civil society.

Panel 2: Israeli and European Writers and Journalists on Perceptions and Misperceptions - How do they affect EU-Israeli Relations?

The panel focused on the different perceptions of Israel as shaped by the European media and society.

Comprehensive observations:

-There is some need to rethink this special relationship between Israel and the EU in order to find other common grounds between the two apart from the common history. It could be the common ground of democracy, considering that countries in Europe as well as Israel are democracies.

-Israel should initiate deep discussions about European and Israeli identity, as well as about Judaism and Christianity. This will lead both sides to new places, but cannot be done when part of this dialogue claims the moral high ground. In order to have new dialogue, there is need to involve people for whom Judaism and Christianity are important.

-In Israel, Europe is seen as a very close location since Israelis cannot cross the immediate borders, making Europe the first stage beyond these borders. However, it is not the same for Europe. Many journalists are surprised to realize that there are other things in Israel besides the regional conflict.

-Europe tends to see the Middle East conflict as having a big influence on the Muslims in Europe, meaning, a heating up of the Middle East conflict could increase and accelerate tensions between the Muslim communities and the European states. Therefore, supporting the Palestinian’s side in this conflict is like “walking on the safe side”.

-The media reports, in both Israel and Europe, have to be changed. At present reporting is motivated also by profit-making interests. This serves to oppress public discourse and leads to unreliable media. The information provided by the media covers primarily the extreme phenomena of each society, resulting in individuals' lack of knowledge about their own societies.

Keynote Addressess

Minister Tzipi Livni, Vice Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Justice (Minister Livni’s speech is attached to this report)

-Israel and the EU show common principles of tradition. Though both sides share the same values, Israel as a state has to take into consideration the different perceptions of each party regarding the other.

- Israeli and EU relations have undergone a significant process. The strategic dialogue between the two has improved during the last years. Nevertheless, Israel sees the enhancement of relations with Europe as of utmost importance – “the sky is the limit”.

-Lebanon: In the course of the efforts to implement UN Resolution 1710, the involvement of the EU forces has grown to be a leading factor in stabilizing Lebanon and ensuring the Lebanese government’s control over its territory. It is not a zero sum game, because all sides have an interest in seeing Lebanon become a stable state. The role of Europe is crucial in this tremendous task.

-Gaza-Rafah: Discussions are continuously held on the question of what is the best way to manage the situation. It is important to mention the significance of the first time in which Israel has opened its gates to European involvement, due to the willingness to express its confidence in Europe.

-Iran: The EU is a key player. This regime is no less a strategic threat to the EU than it is to Israel. This is also a situation in which Israel is clearly under threat but it is important to understand that it has a domino effect. If the international community will not be strong enough in the near future it risks the proliferation of other nuclear programs in the region. Besides the nuclear issue, no less threatening are the statements regarding the Shoah and the destruction of the State of Israel.

-These issues demonstrate the necessity for closer relations between Israel and the EU. Against the background of the growing challenges (economic, security, cultural etc.) both parts can build a new model of relations. Its building blocks have already been set up in the framework of the Action Plan.

Comprehensive observations:

-Other panelists mentioned that we have a very serious image problem in the way Israel and the EU are viewed by one another. Almost 4 years after we started the negotiations on the enlarged Europe we can already say that there is much more knowledge about Europe and more cooperation in different common areas. Israel and the EU have modest beginnings - the roadmap, and it seems that both sides have overcome the suspicions they harbored against one another.

-At this stage a strong common agenda needs to be established, along with the founding of a strategic model between Israel and the EU.

-The deadlines of the neighborhood policy are not the end of the process. This is a time for high-level dialogue between Israel and the EU about the nature of their relations.

-Europe knows how to organize itself, but it seems that it is seeking reforms in countries where implementation is difficult. From this perspective, Israel is a very easy country in which to move forward faster. It will not always be easy due to technical and political factors - it is clear that the difficulties caused by the political situation in the area will affect the process.

12/12/2006 - Day II - Learning the Lessons: Between Partnership and Membership

Panel 3: On the Path to the EU: The Cases of Russia, Turkey and the Western Balkans

The panelists examined different models of relations with the EU by emphasizing the features of each model, its similarity and effect on Israel and on the region in general.

Comprehensive observations:

Russia

-The Russians consider themselves Europeans. Russia nowadays doesn’t want to be dependent on other powers.

-The feeling in Russia is that the European values are being used as instrumental manners. There is a growing consensus that integration with the EU should not be integration into the EU. “Russia is too big and too Russian”.

-Russia should have already started the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, while in reality it hasn't started yet. Furthermore, even if they had started, the agenda would not have been very ambitious. In terms of the importance of the framework, it is even inferior to the action plans which were discussed with a few countries in Latin America.

-Russia can derive more from the relationship with the EU, and there are central areas where better cooperation is possible, such as the Russian economy and energy.

-Russia and the EU should try to work on common criteria and ‘rules of the game’ regarding Iran and North Korea, and to pay more attention to Pakistan. There should be more contact between the civil society and NGO's.

Turkey

-The process with Turkey has reached the stage where Europe has to decide if its goal is peace and security or spreading Europe’s ideology in a global manner.

-Notwithstanding how the Pope’s visit may reduce European–Turkish religious and cultural tensions, it is now clear that the European Union’s relations with Ankara have not evolved as planned. European-Turkish relations have become increasingly complex, non-linear, and potentially chronically flawed.

-Should the EU decide to end the process, there will be an immediate deterioration. If not accepted into the Union, many of the achievements Turkey has achieved till now might be lost as well. It is due to the idea of entering the EU that the Turkish democracy has been upgraded to such an extent. If the EU rejects Turkey, it will not just end the internal changes of Turkey but will also affect the chances for moderate Islam.

-If Brussels aspires to accelerated progress it will have to demonstrate more commitment to Turkey’s membership, otherwise ironically Ankara will also perceive the EU as a security risk. The internal debate in Turkey has taken a negative turn recently. An example of this is the leftist parties’ joining the ultra nationalistic forces against the membership.

Bulgaria and Romania

-These countries were originally part of the EU enlargement strategy - in the early nineties the EU offered full membership to all the former communist countries. However, in 2002, in the listing of the new members of the EU, Bulgaria and Romania were excluded.

-Bulgaria and Romania were fortunate since their accession negotiations were ended only 2 months before the European Constitution was rejected by the referendum in France and the Netherlands.

-The EU has learnt not to promise a specific date for accession in the future, since this way it limits its own ability to require further conditions from candidate countries.

Panel 4: Between the Swiss and the Norwegian Models

Both Norway and Switzerland have special relations with the EU. They share full economic integration with the EU, not including monetary integration and without political integration - “sharing all but institutions”. Norway and Switzerland are invited to participate in the decision-shaping process in the EU, not including the formal institutions and just with the right to comment.

The main difference between both models is that the Norwegian one is an “all in one package” model, meaning accepting all the EU regulations as is. The Swiss model is a “coup par coup” model, which means specific international agreements on different subjects of negotiations.

Comprehensive observations:

Swiss Model

-Europe is a natural dividing line in Switzerland. The Swiss relations with the EU are not a simple matter. The model is very interactive and is still evolving.

-Civil society works almost without regard to the integration process - Swiss universities implemented the Bologna Process almost before all EU Member States.

-Switzerland is very different from Israel. Therefore, Switzerland cannot be a model for Israel. Israel has to decide what it wants and not follow the Swiss model automatically. Israel has its interests and that is what should govern its policies with the EU.

Norwegian Model

-There are many advantages to the Norwegian model over the Swiss one, in relation to Israel. Some of them relate to the fact that the Norwegian model is “a take it or leave it package”- such an approach has advantages in investment terms, since Israel is considered an “automatic pilot”.

-The EEA model imposes on Israel regulatory policy. In addition, the EEA membership can be considered as a preparatory stage, with a vision to full membership. Israel will have to make the reforms anyway, in order to be on the same level of the EEA region. Another point is that in 10-15 years from now the memory of the Shoah will not be as strong as now. That is why Israel should ask for as much as it can from the EU now.

-Moreover, the negotiations on the Norwegian model are much shorter than the time it took to negotiate with Switzerland. The Swiss model will leave Israel in limbo regarding the regional composition and positioning of the EU’s system of external regionalism, while non-EU EEA Members are clearly “quasi-members”.

-It is better to have a minor in fluence on decisions than not have any influence at all.

-Israel must remember that "it takes two to tango” meaning, to understand first the logic of the other side before trying to design and implement policies. Israel should also examine the balance between the relationship with the EU and the US and other emerging superpowers like China.

-Dealing only with the framework of the relations between the EU and Israel distracts our intention from the issue of the content. Up until now Israel has signed a few agreements with the EU, many sections of which were not fulfilled yet. Israel is pushing to proceed with the framework but finds it difficult to harvest the fruits of the agreements it has already achieved.

Panel 5: The Bologna Process: Should Israel Join?

The purpose of the Bologna Process is harmonization of higher education. This will be implemented by easy transferability and increased human capital mobility and providing smooth recognition procedure. The Bologna system leads to a standardized education, makes degrees comparable, sets minimum credit requirements and recognizes academic degrees for teaching purposes. The Bologna Process is a standardization platform. It enhances human capital mobility and forces modernization of national systems. The panel focused on the advantages and disadvantages of the program in general and in relation to the Israeli case.

Comprehensive observations:

-Israel has a high quality of education based on research. Thus this discussion is highly relevant, with the atmosphere favoring the Bologna Process.

-In order to be attractive to the Bologna process Israel should emphasize the field of science, and the relations with the European academy will have to be based on the quality level.

-The questions that should be asked regarding the government-university relationships: What does it mean? How far should the government go? Where does it lead? What can the Bologna Process do to save universities from governmental abuse? Additional questions may be: How does the European education attract students? How do we make Europe more attractive to Israeli students?

Concluding Session: EU Membership- What does it Mean for Israel?

Comprehensive observations:

-A full Israeli membership in the EU is not a realistic option. However, Israel always looks at it as a vision, thus the option should not be dismissed. The fact is that the EU is not offering membership to Israel. Membership is never offered, rather the countries have to apply for it. Israel has never applied for EU membership.

-The real question is not whether Israel should have full EU membership but whether it can develop different relations with the EU. This is, actually, what Israel and the EU have being doing in the last couple of years.

-What is the European Union? A European political project. When Israel considers a full membership in it, it should examine whether it is really ready to participate fully in this European political project with all its rights and obligations. It is about sharing the sovereignty with all its implementations.

-What are the legal consequences of EU membership for Israel?

1.Israel will probably have limited influence on the political decisions in the EU.

2.One of the clearest demands of becoming a member is that a country has to adjust its legal system and implement the acquis. In addition to this, Israel will be under continuous scrutiny, with many commission’s examinations whether it fulfills the required demands.

3.Israel will not be able to pick and choose, rather to take the whole system as is.

4.Israel will have to accept the principle of supremacy of EU law. This is not to say that it is not possible or desirable, but that it is another issue to consider.

Therefore, there is no doubt that EU membership will bring many benefits and significant economic progress, but attached to this will be an immense responsibility to act in accordance with EU demands.