AMERICA’S retreat from the woes of the world is worrying its friends in the Middle East. Jihadists are surging through Iraq; Syria uses chemical weapons without retribution; and the latest American attempt to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed. Is it time for Europe to help fill the vacuum?

Europeans always dream of exerting global influence commensurate with their economic weight. The Middle East’s problems have a way of washing up on Europe’s shores, be it boat people landing on the Mediterranean coast, or terrorists returning after being hardened by jihad in one or other civil war. And yet Europeans are struggling to be heard.

Take this week’s visit to Israel by José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission. He expanded on what, in another time or place, would be a big promise: if and when the Israelis and Palestinians make peace, the EU stands ready to offer economic integration akin to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland. In Ukraine the power of a similar offer precipitated a civil war and geopolitical contest with Russia; in the Holy Land, though, the promise of “special privileged partnerships” was barely noticed. It is striking, that, separately, Israel chose not to vote in March on a UN motion sponsored by the West to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

If America elicits less respect from Israel these days, Europe is the object of much scorn. Europe is remembered as a Jewish graveyard and, latterly, is regarded as an economic basket-case. Even collectively, it packs far less military punch than America. The French- and British-led intervention that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya has left a violent mess. The European Union’s 28 member-states are divided between big, small, old and new members and, when it comes to Israel, between the guilt-ridden (Germany) and the disapproving (Sweden).

As with much else, EU foreign-policy positions are finely balanced compromises, so even important moves are lost in woolly formulations. Seeking to keep Israeli-Palestinian peace talks alive after John Kerry, the American secretary of state, declared a “pause” in his mediation, Mr Barroso said the hiatus was “untenable in the long run”; peace with the Palestinians was in Israel’s best security interest.

Sanctimonious waffle, thought his audience at the Herzliya conference, an annual Israeli security-policy gathering. For a country worried about survival, the status quo seems rather good. In Egypt the army toppled the Islamist president, Muhammad Morsi, and security co-operation with Israel has rarely been closer. As a result Hamas, the militant group that runs the Gaza Strip, has been weakened, not least by Egypt’s closure of underground tunnels. Israel frets about Hamas’s “reconciliation” with the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, but the Palestinians are still far from unified, largely bottled up behind Israel’s security barriers and forgotten by Arab states.

Syria and Iraq are consumed by civil war. The buffer-state of Jordan is holding. Fear of Iran is driving Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states into a tacit de facto alliance with Israel. There are drawbacks. Jihadists have carved out enclaves in Syria and Iraq, while Iran and Hizbullah have extended their influence. These problems are too big for Israel. If America stays out, Israel’s least bad option is for its enemies to keep killing each other.

Israel has two more immediate worries. One is the negotiation between the five members of the UN Security Council and Iran on its nuclear programme. America and the Europeans may insist that no deal is better than a bad one. But Israel reckons that any likely accord will, by definition, be bad.

A second concern is that European countries will step up the campaign of boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS). The publication last year of formal guidelines to prevent EU money from going to people or bodies in the occupied territories was unsettling. Israeli officials respond with a mixture of bravado (Israel can forsake trade with Europe by turning to Asia) and shrill denunciation (delegitimising Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism).

Tellingly, though, Israeli politicians who favour more territorial concessions to Palestinians often cite the threat of BDS. And Israel this week acquiesced to the guidelines as they applied to Israel’s role in Horizon 2020, the EU’s research programme.

And yet Europe matters

The question of Palestine is just one of many problems in the Middle East, and perhaps not even the most pressing one. But here Europeans can make a difference. Geography and centuries of common history, even if scarred by the Holocaust, cannot be ignored. Europe’s borders are close to Israel’s, and the EU is the Jewish state’s biggest trading partner. For Palestinians, Europe is their most reliable friend.

America is of paramount importance to Israel’s security. But Europe makes several vital contributions. Its sanctions on Iran helped bring the mullahs to the negotiating table; its money keeps the Palestinian Authority alive as a negotiating partner for Israel; and Europe is central in managing the Syrian refugee crisis.

To be heard, Europeans need to speak clearly about what a two-state solution means: the end of Israeli occupation of land captured in 1967 (with agreed land swaps and a deal on Jerusalem), but also the end of further Palestinian claims on the Jewish state created in 1948. Palestinian refugees will, overwhelmingly, return to the new state of Palestine, not their old homes in Israel.

And rather than promising vague partnerships, the EU would be better off making a clear and simple offer: if Israel and Palestine reach a full and final peace agreement, they should be eligible for membership of both the EU and NATO. Either or both countries may well decline, but they could not ignore it.

Economist.com/blogs/charlemagne