Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-24-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020424.3.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do have the vague impression that, on the one hand, we are all right and that, on the other hand, we are all hypocrites.
Those who welcome this must also welcome the fact that those in Palestine who are responsible for sending young people to massacre Israelis will also be brought before the international tribunal in The Hague. This applies to both sides.
If we continue to debate the issue in this way, we will be credible.
I shall conclude by saying that I support a UN-led international fact-finding mission to investigate events in Jenin, and I ask all those who, today, are in favour of this, bearing in mind that the State of Israel is a democratic country, why then did they refuse an international fact-finding mission being sent to Algeria, when Algeria is not nearly as democratic as Israel is today. We have one set of rules but two ways of applying them. This is what I am saying. We are hypocrites, we are in favour of something when it suits us, and against it when it does not. When we have put our own house in order, this is when the world will believe that we are credible.
We say either that Israel is not doing enough or that it is doing too much, which is true. We say the Palestinians are not doing enough, which is also true. What about us though? Are we doing enough? I am asking a very simple question. At Barcelona, we decided to grant development aid, not 0.7% of GDP, as is needed, nor 1%, which is closer to what is required… instead we decided to grant 0.39%! And now we are discussing the need to create 40 million jobs in North Africa, and more than 150 million throughout the world.
Are we not hypocrites? Are we not people who make speeches, but, when it comes to adjusting our budgets, we think of ourselves first and only of others later? Is that not the truth? I would therefore like to ask this question: are we doing enough?
Let us now turn to the problem of Israel. The international community clearly agreed to the State of Israel in the wake of the barbaric events of the Holocaust. This was both fair and unfair. The international community spoke out for justice and injustice at the same time. The time has come to ensure justice is done and to make up for the injustice. In order to make up for the injustice, the UN must now declare the Palestinian State by formal vote, in the same way as it declared the State of Israel by formal vote.
This would make up for the injustice and ensure justice is done. We can do this immediately.
Secondly, when considering peace, we must ask who can achieve peace? We say that the State of Israel is a democratic country. This is true. I think that the Palestinian Authority is a social structure in which the democratic process is underway, but there is still much for it to do. However, we are aware that, in democratic elections, it is not almost the most democratic candidates that receive the greatest number of votes. The elections in Europe have shown us this.
On this basis, therefore, how can we reassure the Israeli people so that they can finally free themselves of Ariel Sharon? There is only one solution that will bring about peace and that is for Israel to finally have a government which, once again, desires peace, which is not the case of the current government, which, whilst claiming to provide greater security for Israel, is bringing more death and insecurity upon the Israeli people. To achieve peace, we must do more. Avraham Burg asked why we do not guarantee the integrity of Israeli territory by allowing Israel to join NATO, for example? And why not? This is one option. Another option is for NATO to guarantee the integrity of the Palestinian State declared by the UN as soon as possible. Given the situation, these two States currently are unable to guarantee the security of the other, to guarantee the hope of the other. It is up to us, the international community, to think how to guarantee the security of both. Two States, both have peace, both have security. Are we doing enough? Have we really finished with all our contradictions? Let us stop saying, on the one hand, that we are all Israelis, or, on the other hand, that we are all Palestinians. We are neither Israelis nor Palestinians. We are Europeans who wish to fight for the right to live in a State that belongs to the Israelis and to the Palestinians. We are all Israeli-Palestinians or Palestinian-Israelis. We must grasp this once and for all. And if we manage to think like that, well, in fact, we can think that if Mr Sharon has committed crimes against humanity, or war crimes – I cannot say and it is not up to me to decide – we now have an international tribunal in The Hague. From the events in Sabra and Chatila to what has just happened in Jenin, those responsible for the massacres must now be brought before the court of international justice."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples