Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.5.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are engaging in a rather curious debate, and I cannot say that I understand all the various standpoints. We are all in favour of putting international relations on a legal footing. It is for us to create the international law that we all desire. That is why I consider the request to the International Court of Justice to produce a report on how it views the reality of this wall to be justified. We basically want a clear statement about what the wall implies. One very simple outcome, as I see it – and you do not have to be clairvoyant here – is that the Court could rule that a wall built on the 1967 borders recognised by the UN might not be to our liking, but would be in accordance with international law. Whether we like it or not, the Israelis are entitled to build a wall on their own territory. We might well regard it as being wrong politically speaking, but the issue of security is not one that we can just brush aside.
The key factor is that building this wall amounts to annexation. Under international law it is an extension of the State of Israel, and an illegal extension at that. It has not been negotiated – force has been used to appropriate part of the land. That being the case, I believe that it would be appropriate for the International Court of Justice to give its opinion. I consider that the European Union, which fought, against the Americans for example, for this court to be established – and we have always said that we want international law – was ill-advised to abstain on this. This is not about opposing Israel. It is about opposing any state arrogating to itself the right to annex land. That is the keystone of international law. It is permissible to exchange land by means of negotiations, but not – and this is also at the heart of the UN Charter – to annex land.
As I see it, the same would apply if an opinion were being sought on the content of the programmes of the Palestinian organisations. The programmes of Palestinian organisations that do not recognise the State of Israel are also illegal and should be identified as such. The issue of the PLO Charter is a complicated one. It would also be possible to determine as a matter of law whether or not it refers to recognition of the State of Israel. That means that it would also be possible to examine the constitution of groups and parties that defend the Palestinian state and Palestinian autonomy. The end result would be that it would no longer be possible for one side or the other to claim a right for itself while refusing to recognise the rights of the other side. That is the key factor in this conflict. The Palestinians have to recognise Israel and any terrorist attacks in Israel contradict that. And the Israelis have to recognise the Palestinian State, and this wall amounts to a rejection of the Palestinian State. That can be legally established."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples