Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.2.3-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
I should like to thank all Members for their contributions to what has been a very important debate.
Article 2 of the Agreement reinforces obligations already incumbent on the signatories in respect of human rights. Perhaps we should emphasise that responsibility. Meetings of the Association Council with Israel provide the European Union with an opportunity to emphasise our concerns – and those stated so many times by Mr De Rossa – to the Israeli authorities. It is better to have a channel to do that.
It would be wrong to let the debate pass without mentioning suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against Israel. The Israeli viewpoint, all too often, is that we are not mindful of their concerns. That is not the case. Suicide and terrorist attacks against civilian targets are condemned. They are an abomination. We all condemn them. Suicide bombings advance no legitimate agenda and can only do damage to the interests of the Palestinian people as well as causing further untold mayhem, damage and suffering to the Israeli people, which has suffered far too much in the past.
We have to be even-handed in this. I believe that Europe is even-handed in this. I agree with Commissioner Patten that, if Europe yet again rebuilds what has been put in place to support the Palestinian people, the least we can expect is that the Israeli authorities should support, respect and protect that infrastructure.
I listened to the weariness in Commissioner Patten's voice when he was speaking. It is a weariness shared by us all in that we have to return the same issue over and over again. It saddens me to note that, in the three short weeks since we last debated this issue, the situation has become worse, not better. We are all depressed by the endlessly grim sequence of events in the region.
This debate, however, gives us an opportunity to continue to remind all of the players and parties in the Middle East – to take up the point made by Mr De Rossa in his final contribution – that people must behave even-handedly and within the acceptable limits of international law. We should also take the opportunity to remind other parties that there is no alternative to full and impartial negotiation of a two-state solution, that this solution should result in a viable, contiguous and sovereign, independent Palestinian state, and that the roadmap is the only available way of achieving that.
If I correctly heard Mr Laschet, he raised two points. First, I believe he suggested that the presidency views the roadmap as somehow dead. That is emphatically not the case. That is certainly not the view of this presidency. We have said time and again that the roadmap is the only viable way out of the current morass. Mr Laschet also seemed to suggest that we see no opportunity for movement arising from the Israeli plans for withdrawal from Gaza. That does not accurately reflect either the presidency's position or the position I stated at Tullamore.
I reject the notion that European Union Member States are in any way disunited on the matter. There is absolute agreement within the Union on this. The Council of Ministers made that clear. The important, substantial and final statement unanimously agreed by the 25 ministers last weekend makes the position very clear.
Questions arise as to whether the roadmap is dead. The roadmap remains the only framework; it is the only option available. There is nothing else available. That point has to be made clear. I am confident that not only is the roadmap as valid and as centrally relevant now as it was when it was first put in place, but its relevance, importance and significance must also continue to be reiterated, particularly when the Quartet meets – probably in New York on 4 May.
The question was raised as to the plans to dismantle the Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Again, the foreign ministers and the general affairs ministers made it clear that there are five elements in this area: first, withdrawal in Gaza must take place within the context of the roadmap; second, it must be seen as a step towards a two-state solution; third, it must not involve the transfer of settlement activity to the West Bank; fourth, there must be an organised and negotiated handover to the Palestinian Authority; fifth, Israel must facilitate the humanitarian reconstruction of Gaza, in which the European Union has invested very heavily.
The issue of anti-Semitism was raised. The ongoing difficulties in the region must never be allowed to become the basis for anti-Semitism to raise its head in Europe again. I agree with Baroness Ludford on that particular point. Her point has been taken. Last autumn the European Union took an unprecedented initiative at the UN General Assembly in proposing a stand-alone resolution condemning all manifestations of anti-Semitism. At the OSCE conference that will take place in Berlin on 28 and 29 April the Union will play its full and appropriate part in addressing and condemning this appalling phenomenon.
Mr De Rossa has said a great deal on this issue with which I agree wholeheartedly. The European Union must be an even-handed player. Mr De Rossa is absolutely consistent and right about that. He is also right about the need for all the players to take a balanced view. However, I am not so sure that he was correct when he suggested that suspension of the Association Agreement is an appropriate tool. Suspension is not on the agenda at the moment. Consensus within the Union would be required for such a step. Those arguing that such an action should take place would have to consider the undesirable consequences arising from it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples