Who is the bigger loser, Israel or the EU, should their relationship fumble? The question arises because the EU-Israel ties are strained in a way not quite seen before. This has come about after Israel’s warning to the EU that it could lose its role as a broker in Middle East peace if it continues to insist that the Netanyahu government publicly express support for a two-state solution.

How affected is the EU-Israeli partnership will be known soon enough as Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman leaves for Europe in the first official visit abroad by a member of the new right-wing government.

The EU is one of four members of the Quartet, the international body charged with promoting an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. The other members are the US, Russia and the United Nations. The US is the only one of the four that really counts.

If Israel is taking the EU for granted, it is also showing a similar attitude toward the US. US envoy George Mitchell’s reiteration that the US desires to see a two-state solution in the Middle East has brought with it speculation that the United States and Israel’s right-leaning government could be on a collision course.

Lieberman has argued repeatedly that the Palestinians do not need a state, at least for the time being, saying that luxurious things like statehood were an afterthought for an impoverished people. He forgets that the fundamental cause of the chronic depression in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was none other than the Israeli occupation.

In June 2008, well before Netanyahu and Lieberman ventured onto the scene, the EU said a closer partnership with Israel must happen in parallel to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the implementation of the two-state solution. At the same time, the 27-member bloc has accepted an Israeli request to delay a high-profile summit to give Netanyahu more time to state what his policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians will be. Instead, the EU-Israel Association Council, which is to be attended by Lieberman and his EU counterparts, will meet on June 15 — a month later than scheduled. The annual gathering is a forum to upgrade Israel’s trade and economic relations with Europe. Thus, the EU is more than willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt.

Lieberman is only the foreign minister; Netanyahu supposedly runs the show. But Lieberman has warned that he will bring down the government if Netanyahu gives even an inch over the two-state solution. Fearing Lieberman could ruffle some feathers in Europe, Israel’s President Shimon Peres has been sent to the US to calm concerns.

There is a standoff in the EU on Israel. Any upgrade with Israel would require a unanimous decision. One way or the other, Lieberman’s visit could help break the stalemate.

Iraq: Britain’s responsibilities

The Observer yesterday commended on British responsibilities toward Iraqis:

Gordon Brown called it a “success story”. Perhaps one day historians will agree, although they may also judge it an unmitigated disaster. But when the British Army’s occupation of southern Iraq formally ended last week, the most common emotion all round was probably relief. At least it is over.

Or is it? A problem with the Iraq war from the outset was that it was devised as a military adventure, launched by politicians, executed by soldiers. Donald Rumsfeld once famously said that the US military did not “do nation-building”. Unfortunately, nation-building turned out to be the sine qua non of successful military intervention. Without nation-building plans and capacity, Iraq descended into chaos as soon as Saddam was toppled. And nation-building demands long-term political, diplomatic and economic engagement.

There is a warning from recent history to that effect. In Bosnia, it was once hoped the grim legacy of civil war could be banished for good. But such hope is receding.

That intervention was required in response to genocide in the Balkans is hardly disputed. While flawed, the NATO and UN missions to the region put an end to hostilities, established functioning borders and set nations on a path to economic and social recovery. But a combination of factors has meant that process has stalled. Corruption is the biggest problem, so is failure to work out technical but highly important constitutional issues. Although a slide back to war is not imminent, stagnation is a big danger as the state is divided along ethnic lines and run by commercial elites allied to organized crime.

Not all of this can be blamed on the international community. But many of Bosnia’s problems arise from the failure of those who championed intervention to maintain interest and political will once the fighting was over. There is clearly a danger of that mistake now being repeated in Iraq. Saddam was defeated within weeks. Six years later, British soldiers are coming home. But that is not the end of Britain’s obligations. The soldiers’ job is done; the politicians’ and diplomats’ work has only just begun.