Setting aside the events in Gaza and the recent escalation of hostilities in Lebanese territory, the persecution of Palestinians in the West Bank can essentially be regarded as ethnic cleansing of the territory. This is not a personal opinion but the stance of the International Court of Justice and the basis for the resolution that called on Israel to end the occupation of Palestinian territories.

If international law remains Estonia's foreign policy compass, it is unclear why some critics perceive Estonia's support for the resolution as a shift in its foreign policy direction. Unfortunately, it rather seems that through ambiguous rhetoric, we are attempting to avoid taking or expressing a clear stance on Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories.

UN resolution should be seen separately

In its efforts to ensure its security, Estonia has systematically worked to increase its foreign policy leverage, from its elected membership in the UN Security Council to acting as a supporter and advocate for Ukraine following Russia's full-scale aggression.

However, this means that, first, we cannot ignore the actions and assessments of the UN and its institutions if we ourselves have legitimized them as part of our foreign policy strategy. Second, we cannot be taken seriously within this framework if we bury our heads in the sand on uncomfortable (or uninteresting) issues and hide behind our allies.

Israel's actions following Hamas' terrorist attacks on October 7 of last year will eventually need to be scrutinized, starting with the full-scale military operations in Gaza, which have resulted in significant civilian casualties, and including the extensive military operations initiated in recent days in Lebanese territory, where nearly 500 people were killed by Israeli missiles on the night before this article was written.

Last week's UN resolution on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, which sparked lively foreign policy discussion in Estonia, should be viewed as a completely separate issue. This concerns the actions of the Israeli government in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, where Israeli settlers, with the support of the Israeli government and military, are essentially taking land and homes from peaceful Palestinians.

Through a process of ethnic cleansing, Palestinians are being driven off lands that have belonged to their families for decades, if not generations. A provocative analogy would be if, under the pretext of what is happening in Ukraine, someone in Estonia threatened a Russian family with weapons, forced them off their property and built a tourist farm there, while the Estonian police and state stood idly by.

The creation of illegal settlements, which is not just a violation of international law but also of Israel's own laws, has been a longstanding issue. However, it has taken an especially aggressive turn over the past year. While the majority of the world's attention has been focused on Gaza, under the fog of war, armed settlers have been operating almost with impunity, and they are not acting alone.

Investigative journalism and international organizations have clearly mapped out the actions of illegal settlers, as well as Israeli government-funded organizations such as Aman and the World Zionist Organization, which financially support the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and the establishment of illegal settlements and outposts on their land.

It is no longer possible to conceal this under the fig leaf of Israel's counterterrorism efforts aimed at neutralizing Hamas or Hezbollah. This is a violent attack – essentially a pogrom – directed against a specific ethnic group, in this case, the Palestinian people.

The situation in the West Bank, taking place under the shadow of the events in Gaza, is exemplified by the Israeli government's efforts to severely restrict the operations of independent international media outlets in the area. Furthermore, the manner in which Israeli government representatives, at the highest levels, have justified their actions by dehumanizing and nullifying the Palestinian people is not much different from the Kremlin's rhetoric toward Ukraine and Ukrainians.

This is not just about a house or a piece of land; it concerns people's lives and livelihoods. What happens to those who have nothing left to lose – no home, no income, no access to education and thus no future, left only with humiliation and a thirst for revenge? Such individuals are easy prey for recruitment by Islamist radicals, becoming the next generation incubator for terrorism.

A few months ago, the International Court of Justice issued its assessment of the situation in the West Bank, reiterating that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal.

From the perspective of Estonia's foreign policy, this is nothing new. Already in 2016, during a visit to Palestine, then-Foreign Minister Marina Kaljurand (SDE) emphasized that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right to self-determination and that Estonia supports a two-state solution.

Given two ongoing assumptions – that Estonia shapes its foreign policy positions based on international law and that we continue to support the two-state solution – it becomes difficult to understand why certain seasoned foreign policy figures are suddenly so confused.

If we have ample evidence of Israel's illegal and inhumane actions in the Palestinian territories and if we logically agree that these actions preclude peace and progress toward a two-state solution, then what is the issue?

Worrying about a "shift in foreign policy course" merely distraction

It is entirely logical that Estonia should support the resolution that backs the International Court of Justice's decision and calls on Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. This course is not only morally right, but also consistent with Estonia's foreign policy compass, which is calibrated to follow international law.

The concern over a supposed "shift in Estonia's foreign policy" seems more like a distraction, used by those who do not wish to express their own substantive views on the matter. At the same time, this debate is unavoidable because the issue is not just a matter of morality; the positions of Estonia and its allies could have very real consequences.

First, this affects both Estonia's and the broader leverage of the European Union and Western nations on the global stage. Ignoring Israel's illegal actions in the Palestinian territories erodes credibility in the Global South, creating more space for China and Russia to expand their diplomatic, economic and military influence.

Second, there is the risk that Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the escalating conflict in Lebanon, could trigger a new massive migration crisis at Europe's borders, with direct impacts on our internal security and political stability.

Of Lebanon's six million residents, 1.5 million are Syrian war refugees, and the country is already on the verge of collapse. Bombing people's homes, livelihoods, futures and schools essentially serves to reproduce terrorism – a threat not limited to Israel's security alone once people begin to flee.

For those arguing that Estonia's support for Israel should remain unwavering due to Russia's ties with Hamas: let's be clear. Russia's sole interest is escalation, war and conflict. Vladimir Putin couldn't care less whether Jews or Muslims die under a barrage of rockets. His goal is to complicate life for Western nations, divert attention from Ukraine and, through the caution of Western countries, create new fractures between the Global West and South, which Russia can exploit to expand its influence.

Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200) deserves praise for taking a clear stance, and hopefully, this will pave the way for a more substantive debate in our foreign policy discourse.

Whether viewed from a moral, legal or pragmatic standpoint for Estonia and the EU, Estonia cannot continue to dodge this issue indefinitely. The topic is complex, and unfortunately, there are those who seek to turn it into a culture war for political gain. Marti Aavik, a board member of the Parempoolsed party, has flirted with this kind of rhetoric. But fear of such polarizing tactics should not sterilize the substantive debate or limit it to topics everyone is comfortable with.

Let's discuss the core issues:

1. What is our moral threshold? How many civilian casualties and how much destruction can be justified in the fight against terrorism?
2. In the fog of war, what should we base our judgments on? UN reports, information from the Israeli government or some third source?
3. What are the risks and consequences of escalating conflict, warfare and humanitarian crises and how do they directly affect the European Union and, in turn, us?

Any other ambiguous rhetoric, such as "this is not our usual practice," is merely a distraction, and I would argue that politicians who resort to this are misleading their voters. Voters have the right to know where their representatives stand on this issue, and diverting attention with dogmatic arguments is, in my view, simply cowardly.

Estonia's support for the resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories is morally, legally, and politically justified. It is fully in line with Estonia's foreign policy compass, which is grounded in international law and institutional cooperation.

Had Estonia opposed the resolution, one might have asked whether the opinions of the UN and its affiliated organizations, as well as international law, no longer play a role in our foreign policy decision-making process.

A hypocritical foreign policy isn't just a matter of worrying about "what others think of us." If we consider the UN Charter and the international legal order as fundamental guarantees for our statehood, it is absurd to demand adherence to these principles in some cases, while in others we hide behind our allies and obfuscate.

Anyone with a basic understanding of foreign policy knows that, in the context of the U.S. presidential elections, the U.S. is unlikely to take a clear position on this issue, and more broadly, aligning with the U.S. on such votes should not be an unchangeable foreign policy dogma – especially considering who might be the next U.S. president.

Finally, I would propose a next step for the foreign minister. Understandably, sanctions against Israel in the current situation are not feasible. However, it is possible to open a discussion with our EU allies about sanctioning certain organizations funded by Israel's far-right government that directly support the establishment of illegal settlements in Palestinian territories.

The European Union (along with Canada and the U.S.) has already sanctioned individuals and organizations responsible for systematic and serious human rights violations against the Palestinian people in the West Bank. It seems pointless to sanction local "heroes" who build tourist farms on stolen land. Instead, we should seriously investigate the role of large organizations like Aman and the World Zionist Organization in supporting the creation of illegal settlements.

If the accusations by independent investigative journalism and human rights organizations are true, then sanctioning these organizations at the EU level would be both morally right and an effective signal.

Vootele Päi holds a master's degree in international relations from the University of Tartu. The commentary reflects the author's personal views.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!