Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-24-Speech-3-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020424.3.3-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank all those who have spoken for their opinions and their contributions which mean that I do not now have to speak for too long myself, since all possible arguments from all points of view have been put forward, and I must say that many of them, furthermore, were made in a similar vein and in almost identical words. I repeat, then, that I wish to thank all the speakers and I should now like to focus my answer on two aspects:
(
The first is the potential relationship between the Barcelona Process and the situation in the Middle East. Despite the gravity of the current situation, peace will one day be achieved in the Middle East, and since this is the case – and we all hope that peace will be achieved sooner rather than later – the Barcelona Process will prove its full potential and effectiveness and at that moment, furthermore, it will prove that it is more necessary than ever. A stable peace can only be achieved on the basis of prosperity, cooperation, economic integration, mobility between the peoples concerned, the exchange of ideas, exchanges between educational systems, the exchange of peoples, and all that the Barcelona Process entails, in its political, economic, cultural and social aspects, is, therefore, of extreme importance in this regard. Consequently, I deduce from today’s debate that we all agree on the need to persevere with the will that we demonstrated in Valencia to revitalise the Barcelona Process.
With regard to the second issue I wish to address, which is specific to the situation in the Middle East, many of the honourable Members have mentioned the policy of Mr Sharon, the current Prime Minister of Israel. I should like to remind you that Mr Sharon has been Prime Minister for just over a year, not even two years, and that he was elected Prime Minister because he reflects the will of Israeli society. I should also like to remind you that the government of Mr Sharon is a government of national unity in which the Labour Party and various other parties are represented, and therefore, when we talk about the policy of Mr Sharon – these things should not be forgotten – we are actually talking about the policy of many others besides him. This is a policy accepted by all the members of his government, because, otherwise, they would have resigned or they would have been removed if they voiced different opinions.
We very often fall into the trap of excessively attributing the causes of the conflict to individuals. The conflict in the Middle East, in its most modern incarnation, started over fifty years ago, and Mr Sharon was not around at that time. I should like to remind you that the second intifada started before Mr Sharon became Prime Minister. Therefore, we must bear all of this in mind and get to the roots of the conflict. It is true, however, that there are specific policies that are especially worthy of criticism and that should be rejected, and as such have been roundly condemned by both Commissioner Patten and myself, not only today but also on many other occasions. The problem has not been caused solely by specific individuals, however, but by something much more profound, and when a conflict lasts for such a long time, with its various shifts of balance, it is because there is no majority will for peace on either side; because there is no sincerity or honesty in the desire for peace expressed by either side; because, when some express their desire for peace, but in their hearts are hoping for the destruction of the State of Israel, they do not want peace, and because when others say that they want peace, but in their hearts what they really want is to make the myth of a greater Israel a reality and, therefore, the consolidation of a State of Israel on the current occupied territories, they do not really want peace.
Since these two attitudes stem from the historical aspirations of both sides, and since these historical aspirations are not compatible with one another, until there is an explicit renunciation, which is sincere and honest, of these historical aspirations, there will be no peace however much we attempt to impose sanctions, and however much the international community does all that it can. It is, furthermore, in this context that we must place the actions of the international community, because our role is especially clear now, and consists of convincing both sides that Israel must issue a sincere and honest renunciation of increasing its territories on the basis of the occupation and the Palestinians and the entire Arab world must issue a sincere and honest renunciation of the destruction of Israel.
If this were achieved, we would then have a completely solid foundation on which to build effectively. Our task is one of persuasion. I am far from sure that this task should be carried out on the basis of sanctions. It must be a task of genuine persuasion, which reaches the political leaders and the general public of both sides. Because the Israeli public, which has now voted – just over a year ago – for Mr Sharon, previously voted for Mr Barak in order for him to achieve peace, and before that, for Mr Netanyahu, and before him, five or six years ago, for Mr Rabin.
There are, therefore, prospects for peace, and this is why we must pursue the approach of cooperation; this is why it is so important that we work together with the United States, with Russia and with the United Nations, and when the opportunity arises to act with a degree of
for Europe to have an independent voice, which sets us apart from the United States, I think that we have to be extremely prudent. I am not implying that we should support every position adopted by the United States. What I am saying is that we should act together, because this is extremely important and, if you read the Madrid Declaration carefully, it states what the European Union has been saying for a long time, and it is other countries, including, to a large extent, the United States, that have come around to the positions of the European Union. I take great satisfaction from this, and we shall also pursue this policy because I believe it is absolutely crucial.
It is in this context of the international community, all working together, that it makes sense to talk about observers, that it makes sense to talk about peacekeeping forces, because, otherwise, these things would not be feasible; and that is when it makes sense for us to talk about Marshall plans and economic contributions – which will have to be considerable, of course – and that we also talk about the full import of the rapprochement of the two peoples on the basis, amongst other things, of their educational systems
The
presence of the historical aspirations which I referred to earlier is clearly reflected in the educational content provided by both sides; the young people on each side have been trained not in conciliation or in peaceful coexistence, but in hate. We have, therefore, a great deal of work ahead of us but the way forward has been mapped out. We know what the final outcome must be and what we need to do is continue working in this direction."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"dilettantism,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples