Advocating for Palestine, mobilising for Israel: mapping pressures in transatlantic diplomacy

This paper aims to map and analyse the impact of advocacy coalitions in the European Union (EU)’s and the United States of America (US)’s foreign policy and diplomacy towards Palestine and Israel. The relation between Palestine and Israel has been a crucial foreign policy dossier for the US and the EU alike. Consequently, both parties have expressed their wish to contribute to (or even broker) a settlement of the conflict and presented this need for a solution as one of their core interests (Musu, 2010). Their willingness took the form of participation in formal and informal fora – through the United Nations (UN) or ad hoc channels, such as the Quartet (Musu, 2006). Yet, diplomatic channels and contacts did not materialise into an alignment of US and EU positions on the format and nature of this conflict’s resolution. While the US maintained its political, financial, and military support to Israel, the EU remained a vocal advocate for a two-state solution and used economic instruments (humanitarian and financial aid to the Palestinian territories, Association Agreement with Israel) as leverage. While the absence of convergence despite variations in diplomatic engagement has been well documented in the literature, this paper invites us to zoom in and interrogate the ‘domestic’ reasons behind foreign policy divergence between the US and the EU, in particular the role of interest groups fostering advocacy ‘coalitions’ in foreign policy. This paper thus seeks to shed light on the nebula of coalitions advocating for one side or the other and, more precisely, on their ideational and normative foundations (in other words, their values and belief systems), their relational patterns (their networks), and their tools, resources, means and patterns of action to influence the policy-making process (in other words, their repertoire). Who are they, and how are they trying to influence the EU’s and the US’ positions on Palestine and Israel? Methodologically, this paper combines the identification and mapping of advocacy agents across national (US and EU Member States), European, and transatlantic levels. Adopting an abductive research design, it alternates between tracing these agents and groups, analysing their ideational and normative components, and connecting them to other stakeholders in the field. To do so, this paper relies on a qualitative analysis of documents produced by interest groups such as statutes, public statements, speeches and communication materials, and official transparency and lobbying datasets: on the US side, the study draws on quarterly lobbying disclosure reports filed by the House and the Senate; on the EU side, it includes the EU Transparency Register, as well as published records of meetings between policy-makers and interest representatives. These various documents are complemented by speeches and communications from officials linked to relevant coalitions, allowing for a systematic mapping of networks and repertoires of influence. By mapping agents, their belief systems and their inclusion in broader advocacy coalitions on both sides of the Atlantic, this paper demonstrates how domestic politics contribute to sustaining transatlantic divergence when it comes to Palestine and Israel.