Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-18-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090218.14.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the message from our debate can only be one thing: there is no violent solution in the Middle East. There is no military solution. There is no solution through terrorism.
It may be the case that one party gains a short-term military advantage. It may be the case that a terrorist act causes a great deal of chaos. Yet experience shows that every act of violence generates more violence and pushes the cycle of violence further. What is crucial, therefore, is dialogue, and that is something that is extremely difficult in the Middle East, especially in a time of uncertainty and, to some extent, of asynchronicity.
Yet there is also hope emanating from the United States. President Obama, Hillary Clinton and their team offer a consensus and dialogue-oriented model, something completely different from the previous administration which has now, thankfully, left office. So there is hope in Washington. What about Jerusalem, though? What Benjamin Netanyahu had to say during the election campaign certainly did pose a threat to the peace process, while Avigor Liebermann is also certainly a threat to the peace process in the Middle East. This asynchronicity poses a risk.
What is going on in Lebanon? What influence will Hezbollah have in future? To what extent is it prepared to engage in constructive dialogue, before and after the election in Lebanon? What about the Western-oriented majority? Would that majority be able to react to an election victory by integrating Hezbollah? Is Hezbollah prepared to allow itself to be integrated? This depends, to a crucial degree, on who governs in Tehran. The issue of the election outcome in Iran is of central importance. This is also true for the attitude of Hamas.
The question of whether we have a radical president who denies Israel’s right to exist – as the current incumbent does – or whether there is to be a government that is prepared to talk and this readiness to talk stretches from Tehran to Beirut and on to Rafah is a crucial issue for the stabilisation of the whole region. We are in favour of a unity government for the Palestinians. Without a unity government for the Palestinians, the peace process is unmanageable. It is therefore now up to Hamas to show that it is willing and able to join such a government.
The basic precondition for this, however, is to be talking with Hamas, that those amongst the Palestinian people who want to talk with Hamas be supported and that they not be forced onto the defensive by a government in Jerusalem that knows only the politics of continuing the settlements. As a side point, if it is true that 163 hectares have now been re-released for settlement, this is a destabilising element and this is something that we need to be absolutely forthright in making clear to our friends in Israel.
In the Middle East, everything is interconnected. It is not possible to simply pick out individual elements and believe it possible to solve an individual problem by military means. That is why the basis for everything is the readiness to talk. The Arab League’s plan, Saudi Arabia’s peace plan, envisages an end to violence with simultaneous recognition of Israel’s right to exist. This is a bold and ambitious plan, and it is one that needs to be discussed. It is progress in itself that there are people in the Arab League, in the Arab camp, who are prepared to have that debate. That is something that must be supported. Bombers are not the way to support this, and I might add that the way to support the work of the European Union is likewise not for what we build to be destroyed again for whatever military reasons. For this reason, our message can only be that dialogue is the precondition.
High Representative Solana, you said that this is your first time before us this year. This is perhaps also your last visit before our elections in June. As dialogue is very much a
for success, I would like to say to you, on behalf of my group, that you represent the personification of dialogue. Your work deserves more than respect. It deserves a great degree of admiration, above all, for your continuous advocacy of dialogue. For that, you have our sincere appreciation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples