Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-01-14-Speech-3-266"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090114.16.3-266"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, debates of the kind we are holding today are very difficult for us all. The reason they are difficult is that Israel is a friend, that many of us – and this is particularly true of me – feel bound to the country by ties of deep friendship. With friends it is all the more important to discuss controversial subjects openly.
So far, this conflict has claimed 1 000 lives in 17 days. It is a bloody conflict, and women and children are suffering particularly as a result of it. There is a UN resolution that forms a basis for declaring an immediate ceasefire and opening negotiations. It is crystal clear that the conflict can be resolved only on the basis of international law, and the fact that international law and international humanitarian law must be respected should be obvious to a democratic country based on the rule of law. It is actually a shame that we are having to discuss this. Therefore, all we can do to overcome the humanitarian crisis is to appeal for an immediate ceasefire. What we say in our resolution is not just anything, but something that is vital in order to put a direct and immediate end to the loss of life, the starvation and the misery.
It is quite clear that the State of Israel has a right to defend itself. It is entitled to defend itself against people whose aim it is to destroy the State. Yet a democratic country based on the rule of law must always ask itself whether the means it uses to do so are proportionate. In my estimation – and, I believe, that of most of my fellow Members in this House – the means are not proportionate.
We must tell our friends in Israel, regardless of their political orientation, that we are aware that Hamas is no peace movement. We know that it is led by people who do not share our fundamental values, and of course each rocket that is fired at Israel is an attack against which the State is entitled to defend itself – but, in spite of everything, it is a mistake to refuse to engage in dialogue. If dialogue is the fundamental precondition for peaceful development, to refuse to engage in such dialogue is to perpetuate the armed conflict. A fundamental adjustment is needed, therefore.
There will have to be dialogue with Hamas. If Israel cannot engage in this directly – I can understand the point of view of Israeli politicians who say we cannot talk to Hamas, even though many of the country’s citizens believe they should – if parliamentarians and members of the government say they do not want to, there are enough opportunities for international mediation. For example, there is the Quartet, and one of the possible tasks of the European Union within the Quartet is to enable such mediation on dialogue.
It is a fundamental error to believe that there can ultimately be a military solution to this Middle East conflict. I consider this a fundamental error regardless of which side believes it. There can be no solution via terrorist acts, and there can be no solution via conventional military action. The only solution there can be is dialogue between the parties to the conflict, with the help of international mediation.
What is needed is an immediate ceasefire. This must be guaranteed by means of the mechanism provided by the international community, if necessary with the help of a multinational force with participation from Arab and, in particular, Muslim States. This would be a way to now bring about a ceasefire and an improvement.
When I was a young lad and entering politics, I was told that one does not talk to terrorists. At that time, the main terrorist was Yasser Arafat. A couple of years later I saw pictures on television of this terrorist leader receiving the Nobel Peace Prize together with Israeli politicians. What was possible then can be possible also in future. Therefore, one question is whether progress is made to the extent that the available mechanisms produce the necessary dialogue. On behalf of my group, I should like to thank all those, including from other groups, who worked on our resolution. If this resolution, which is supported by all the groups in the House – I consider this a good sign – can help improve the atmosphere, we shall have made a contribution, however small, to ending loss of life that is intolerable to all."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples