Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-19-Speech-4-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060119.3.4-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when, in November, the Palestine Delegation met the Catholic bishop, Michel Sabah, he stated clearly that we should not obtain peace in the Middle East during the next 40 years if a just peace were not achieved in Israel/Palestine, involving a proper Palestinian state within bounds corresponding to the pre-’67 borders and not to Sharon’s enclaves. Jerusalem, which is also the Palestinians’ city, is part of the solution. Jerusalem is absolutely central. If Israel annexes the whole of Jerusalem, the key to peace will have been thrown away, and not only in that particular area but also in terms of relations between the Arab countries and the West. Bishop Michel Sabah’s words were in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council of 7 November 2005. Here was a clear statement that Jerusalem should be kept as an open city, and for the Palestinians too, and a request that Orient House be reopened.
This, however, is where the West’s double standards really come into their own. Israel is completely indifferent to the EU’s statements, for the Israelis know that none of the foreign ministers take their own words seriously. We even maintain Israel’s major economic privileges, despite the fact that they are expressly conditional on Israel’s observance of human rights, and the Council has just arranged for its own report on Jerusalem not to be published. At the same time, the EU is trying to buy its way out of anything to do with the Palestinians, for whom, in conjunction with Israel’s policy of apartheid, the EU and the United States are becoming entirely responsible. The fact is that Sharon wanted to call these walled-in enclaves a state, which would mean that Israel no longer had responsibility for the Palestinians under international law. Palestine would have no chance of creating a healthy economy on those conditions and would forever be dependent on others.
Matters will undoubtedly end badly unless miracles now take place in Israel and the people of peace and justice acquire power, not only in Palestine but also in Israel, or unless a miracle almost as remarkable occurs and the EU at long last begins to take its own words and international law seriously and makes use of the resources to which Europeans quietly have access. Nothing will happen as long as the Council and the Commissioner do not even mention the settlements and the Wall and do not say a word about a proper state."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples