Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-13-Speech-3-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041013.4.3-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, divine intervention notwithstanding, I imagine that this will be the last speech – certainly on the Middle East – that I make in this House. I have lost count of the number of debates on this subject there have been since I took office. On a sensitive issue like this, it is only natural that our exchanges have sometimes been a little difficult. I hope that they have been of some use. I certainly hope they have not done any damage.
We have to make it clear that our role – the role we want to play in helping to support reconstruction – must be dependent on a real political dialogue with the Israeli authorities. Otherwise the money will simply be wasted, in the same way that too much of what we have done already has been wasted.
I repeat that, working on the basis of the report by the Council on Foreign Relations, working on the basis of the work initiated by Mr Rocard and his colleagues on that Council, we have done more than anyone else to put in place reformed institutions in Palestine. I salute the work of people like Mr Salam Fayyad, who has bravely tried to ensure that Palestine has a decent and transparent government. It must be said, however, that without political progress, without an improvement in the security situation and without a more effective dialogue with Israel, it is going to be incredibly difficult to continue to justify that sort of help and that sort of expenditure.
There is no more important problem facing the international community than this one, not only because of the bloodshed that it continues to produce, unresolved, but also because of the damage it does to the relationship between the West and the Islamic world. Nobody should be in any doubt at all about the impact of the struggle between Israel and Palestine and about the impact that it has on attitudes in the Islamic world. We must work even harder to try to shape the parameters of a solution to this bloody conflict. If we do not succeed in that then to return to what is – I think – the last line of Euripedes’ Hecuba: ‘fate compels and none can resist’. Bloodshed after bloodshed after bloodshed, revenge after revenge after revenge, unless people in Washington, in Europe and, above all, in Israel and Palestine, have the political courage to try to deliver what their people deserve and what the whole world requires.
As I approach the end of my term as a Commissioner – I underline ‘as a Commissioner’ – I have started going to the theatre again. I recently saw a new interpretation by that admirable Irish playwright, Frank McGuinness, of Hecuba by Euripides. The classicists and theatregoers among you may recall that this is a bleak and bloody drama of death, hate and revenge. Perhaps all too suitably for this production, the backdrop to the stage was a tall black wall inscribed with the names of the Israelis and Palestinians who have died in the last few years – hatred, revenge and blood. It is certainly true, looking back, that despite the heroic efforts of my friend and colleague the High Representative and others we unfortunately have scant progress to report. Just the other day, as the High Representative pointed out, we saw the dreadful massacre of Israeli tourists in Egypt. Time and again one hope after another has been dashed. We had Camp David, Taba and the understandings reached there, and excellent reports from Mitchell, Tennet and Zinni, all of which were to no avail. Indeed, since Taba the sombre balance is that a total of 4 360 people have died: 1 026 Israelis and 3 334 Palestinians. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – after which, as Gandhi said, everybody ends up blind. Innocent children for innocent children.
The latest initiative is Prime Minister Sharon’s proposals for unilateral disengagement in Gaza. Any steps towards withdrawal from occupied territory – albeit limited – are to be welcomed. However, there are, as the High Representative pointed out, many questions that need to be clarified, not least in the broader context of the roadmap. Although we have our reservations, this initiative does foresee the beginning of the removal of settlements – an important aspect and one in line with what we have been saying for a very long time. Therefore, we are prepared to give it a try, although we have to be clear, as the High Representative said, that the parties will factor in the five elements which the European Council has identified as being essential for the plan to work. We must insist that those points are respected.
The scepticism that has undoubtedly surrounded this initiative has increased, as the High Representative very diplomatically said, as a result of the extraordinary remarks made recently by the Israeli Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and senior adviser, which have been deeply damaging. I hope that despite such remarks the two-state solution continues to be recognised as the only hope for an end to the conflict. To be realistic, we should not expect too much – except, alas, perhaps more death and destruction – until after the US presidential elections. Even then it would be unwise to expect miracles. However, at the very least the international community should engage boldly with the Israeli Government to establish its commitment to the two-state solution, and with the Palestinians to establish their commitment to security and reform. That is the only way to end the conflict. The roadmap shows how to do it, so the challenge for the European Union is to steer the parties and others in the international community towards the roadmap. Otherwise people may come to believe that Mr Weisglass was right and that his only mistake was to let the cat out of the bag.
During the course of my mandate, I have tried with the support of the majority of Parliament to build a reformed Palestinian Authority capable of governing Palestine in due course and of negotiating and reaching a settlement with Israel. During that period the Israeli Government has been seeking to marginalise President Arafat himself. However, at the end of the day President Arafat is still there while, unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority itself has been battered to pieces. I accept that President Arafat might be part of the problem, but he is not the only problem. What I have always been clear about is that a reformed Palestinian Authority is part of the solution.
It is not clear whether, under the current internal and external circumstances, the Palestinian Authority is in much of a position to deliver on a two-state solution. The deadly combination of too little action on the Palestinian side and what has perhaps been too much action on the Israeli side, has quite successfully destroyed most of the authority that the Palestinian Authority might otherwise have had. We need to find a way to give the Palestinian Authority more political room for manoeuvre and to do this in return for cast-iron guarantees on security and reform.
The High Representative noted the general work that we have done to support economic development as well as institutional development and humanitarian relief in Palestine. This Union has done far more than anyone else. This Parliament has voted for and supported far more assistance than anybody else has provided. I expect that this Parliament will now start asking itself some searching questions about the continuation of assistance on the present scale.
Let me make one obvious point. We are the biggest supporters of the World Bank's Palestinian Development Fund. To say we are the biggest supporters is in fact an understatement. Hardly anyone else is contributing any money to it at all. We want to see that money used to lay the foundations for an economy in the Palestinian territories that can provide jobs, revenues and at least a modicum of economic growth so that people can live a better life with greater dignity, have a better chance of a job, and so on.
We are all entitled to question whether that money will be nugatory expenditure, and whether any expenditure will be worthwhile unless we can obtain certain guarantees from Israel on its withdrawal from Gaza, on the way that is going to be handled, and on Gaza's medium- and long-term prospects. I am sure Parliament would not want to feel that we were simply footing the bill for the consequences of whatever the Israeli Defence Forces did."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples