Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-240"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.9.3-240"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Oslo process is dead, the ‘road map’ has led to a dead end and the downward spiral of violence is maintaining the status quo. This violence has risen to a new and particularly dangerous level for the region and is causing misery for the civilian populations. We have come a long way from the stone-throwing of the first Intifada: what has succeeded this are the suicide attacks against Israel’s civilian population and this terror is met by the systematic use of intelligent weapons of targeted destruction, which also kill civilians – this time Palestinians.
Some sort of balance in terror is achieved, prospects for a political solution tend to disappear and the dead are counted, Given these circumstances, the Geneva Israeli-Palestinian initiative does well to return the issue of peace to the very heart of the debate. In an attempt to escape the feeling of inevitability surrounding the spiral of violence, the leading players have chosen boldness, in stark contrast with the pre-election paralysis afflicting the US and with Europe’s structural lethargy.
Instead of proposing small steps, the ‘Geneva Agreement’ wholeheartedly embraces the fundamental issues, which have been studiously ignored both by the Oslo Agreement and the Road map, but follows the approach set out at Taba. No area is considered taboo and even the most contentious points are examined: Jerusalem, the Holy places, in particular the Dome of the Rock, or Temple Mount, which would be placed under Palestinian sovereignty, the recognition of Israel, the renunciation of the right of return to Israel of the 1948 refugees and their descendants, a viable Palestinian State, the settlements and land sharing.
I would add in this regard that the parallel drawn just now by the rapporteur between the Berlin and the Israeli walls does not stand up to scrutiny: the Berlin wall divided a single State, the artificial division of which we never recognised, the Israeli wall, although we can dispute the line it follows, can be considered to be the outline of a border between two States, which we dearly wish to see established instead of the current situation of occupation.
The Israeli and Palestinian authors of the Geneva Agreement have decided that tensions run so high today that, in order to encourage the two main players to leave behind the mindset of reprisals in which they are currently locked, small steps in the field of security would be more difficult to define and would generate even more misunderstandings than presenting an overall peace plan. The political basis underpinning this plan is undeniably flimsy: its authors are, it must be admitted, not highly representative of Israeli and Palestinian public opinion. We must, therefore, focus on the method that has been selected: that of not swerving from the ultimate aims. It is the substance of the proposals that must take priority. Our debate tonight, Mr President, can make a contribution to this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples