Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-031"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Situation in the Middle East2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010904.2.2-031"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-04-Speech-2-0322
lpv:speaker	lp:Bas Belder2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2000-10-05--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, acting President of the Council, Mr Michel, did not pull any punches during his speech on the European Union’s input to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when he stated that the role of the European Union is very limited. This is mainly due to two factors, as Mr Michel openly acknowledged: Israel considers the EU to be pro-Palestinian, in other words not to be an impartial external mediator in the dispute between neighbours; and, secondly, there is no unanimity within the European Council as to a common strategy to be adopted for the Middle East. How can the EU respond? It can, at any rate, moderate the Israeli criticism of pro-Palestinian partiality by resolutely distancing itself as the Council, the Commission and individual Member States from the unprecedented anti-Israeli smear campaign which is currently being conducted at and around the UN Conference against racism in Durban. At the same time, the European institutions must openly condemn the behaviour of the President of the Palestinian Authority. Mr Arafat’s accusation, levelled at Israel, of pursuing a racist policy only fans the flames of Palestinian violence. Meanwhile, the German Foreign Minister, Mr Fischer, is attempting to round up the EU Member States in order to revive the Middle East peace process. His plans, summarised in a non-paper, have the backing of four major EU Member States (France, Great Britain, Spain and Italy), as well as of the High Representative, Mr Solana, according to the German press. Have the other members of the Council or the Commission been consulted? I would also add another question to this: has an understanding been reached with the US Administration? Surely, both the President of the Council, Mr Michel, and the non-paper emphasise the indispensability of Washington in order for the peace process to get back on its feet. The essence of the non-paper is the mediation and arrangement of an initial meeting between the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Peres, and Mr Arafat. This meeting should be the cautious beginning of a gradual peace process. Certainly in the non-paper, the Palestinians demand an end to the violence, but that is no longer an absolute condition for Israeli-Palestinian talks. Does the European Union not in this way, in fact, brook the Palestinian which has now grown into a fully-fledged guerrilla organisation with fully-equipped paramilitary units? If the Council and the Commission are to avoid this elementary question, then all well-intended mediation attempts will irrevocably fail."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Intifada"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph