Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.5.3-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, in this hearing at the International Court of Justice about the Israeli security wall the question seems to us to be very badly put and therefore likely to be very badly resolved. This barrier is in fact only a subsection of a much wider plan called disengagement, which is only an adjunct to an even wider process, which is the roadmap for peace talks. All the interconnections between these different levels are very complex. It would therefore be inappropriate to want to judge a small subsection separately without attempting to consider the role it plays in the whole process. Especially if we are wanting to look at it from a strictly legal angle when it is a component of the whole of a peace process that is obviously political in nature.
That is why those European countries that were against taking the problem before the International Court of Justice on the grounds that it would hamper the peace efforts were perfectly right. We must not look at this problem through the small end of the telescope because that would risk calling into question a peace process that everyone would want to support.
Finally, we must make the distinction between the principle of the security barrier and the line it takes. I believe I have detected some confusion about that in this debate. Just as the line of the barrier can be a matter for negotiation and, like any matter for negotiation, subject to change, so its principle is a matter of the sovereign right of a state – and, moreover, a state whose survival is constantly threatened – to ensure the safety of its citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples