Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.2.3-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to echo the comments made by Mr Poettering and, in particular, by you, Mr President. We all deplore the events of the last few hours. We particularly regret that Mahmoud Abbas is unable to speak to us. We regret it not for our own sake but because he would have been able to come: the fact that he was already here, that he was able to come to this Parliament, that he could accept our invitation, was an encouraging sign, in particular that we are able to receive the elected Palestinian president here. In so doing, we were providing a situation in which – as Mr Poettering just said – we are working together step by step towards a Palestinian state, by giving Mr Abbas his due, namely the future leadership of a state, representing his country in the region as an equal partner on the basis of full sovereignty. That must be our aim. And every little contribution that we can peacefully make to that is a job well done.
It would have been good if Mr Abbas had been able to take advantage of this situation, but that has now been postponed. We quite deliberately say postponed, because we hope that we will be able to welcome Mr Abbas here as soon as possible.
With regard to the recent events in Jericho, however, which I discussed, last night and this morning with those Members who have been in the area as election observers for the past few weeks, my group is asking the question that always arises in international politics in such circumstances:
? Who benefits from what happened? Of course, we can only speculate about that, and speculation is not an answer.
However, I do have three questions. The first question is: does it actually benefit anybody to storm this prison? The answers we are currently getting from the Israeli media are not adequate. I do not think it makes sense that a state whose services are able to carry out targeted assassinations needs to storm a prison when it comes to the potential release of detainees held there. Surely there are ways to prevent that without needing to storm the jail.
My second question is this: Why was this action carried out at all, when international observers were monitoring this prison as part of an international agreement? Why was this international commitment not honoured? Why was it not used?
Thirdly, I hope that this action was not motivated by any internal political reasons in Israel. It would be fatal if the internal political events that are due to take place in March were the real reason. We would find that very regrettable, because it benefits nobody. It might bring short-term domestic success, but it would harm the entire region in the long term."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples