Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-06-Speech-3-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060906.21.3-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like, in this speech, to focus on the security of Israel and Europe’s interest in it, it being something that we, by reason of our history – terrible, tragic, and full of disasters as it has been – are under an obligation to defend.
What, though, is meant by security for Israel? Firstly, Israel needs neighbours that are themselves secure, that can concentrate on their own economic and social development, that are not dependent on their neighbours, that are not themselves under occupation or suffering from blockades. Lebanon, then, needs to be independent, not least from Syria, without military forces occupying it and not under threat of a blockade.
Secondly, if Israel is to be secure – which is the end we have in view – then there are UN resolutions that must be implemented, first among them the first UN resolution which, while bringing about the foundation of Israel, also envisaged the establishment of a Palestinian state. If such a state is to exist and be independent, it follows that withdrawal from the occupied territories will be necessary.
Let me now quote the view expressed by Gideon Levy of the Israeli newspaper
who said, as do many other Israelis today, ‘The cancer that threatens us more than any terrorism is the occupation of a foreign country and of its people’, and so you, Mr President-in-Office, have been quite right to make it clear, as you have over recent days and weeks, that we have to get negotiations to a point where Israel’s long-term security is guaranteed. As was shown by the last war in Lebanon, what we seek will be achieved neither by war and violence – which brings forth only more of the same – nor by unilateral withdrawal, particularly when not accompanied by a guarantee from the armed forces or a peace policy that there will be no more atrocities.
Negotiation means engaging in dialogue, and if people are to engage in dialogue with one another, they have to accord each other recognition, so we should not talk too much about conditions, particularly if they are one-sided. We demand, and rightly, of Hamas that it should recognise Israel within the 1967 borders, but then we must also demand that Israel should accept those borders as well, or we can tell them, from the outset, to sit down and talk among themselves, taking as their starting point the relevant UN resolution, after which we can talk about corrections and so on. That being so, there can be only one peace process – one that is based on negotiations.
Mr President-in-Office, I would like to correct you on one point, in that we are not going ‘back to a peace process’, but rather, in fact, ‘forward to a peace process’, since there has not yet been a peace process that was really effective and promised to be successful.
I would like to thank you both – Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office – for having, through what you have done and what you have said over the last few weeks, helped us to get a more realistic picture, so that Europe can now really begin to play a major part in setting in motion a lasting peace process of the kind that is needed for the security not only of Israel but also of the region as a whole."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples