Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
3 December 2012
Question for written answer
to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)
Rule 117
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)

 Subject:  VP/HR — EU blacklist of ‘known violent settlers’ from Israel

A note of the Maghreb-Mashreq committee (MaMa) of 17 October 2012 entitled ‘Follow-up to 14 May FAC conclusions on MEPP: Settler violence’ was approved by the Political and Security Committee (PSC) on 16 November 2012. The content of this note is very disturbing, as it suggests that Member States ‘could explore the possibilities of denying access of known violent settlers to the EU’. I am also deeply disturbed by MaMa’s recommendation for the following line of action: ‘The EU missions in Tel Aviv as well as in Jerusalem and Ramallah will step up monitoring on the Israeli authorities’ action against violence by extremist settlers […] the EU missions could attend trials in the most serious cases.’ It is scandalous that such an action (usually reserved for countries with gross human rights violations such as Belarus) is recommended towards a democracy like Israel, which ardently upholds the rule of law. The Israeli authorities have already taken firm and decisive action to counter all forms of violence. I am fervently convinced that this is Israel’s internal issue and that the authorities are dealing with it accordingly.

1. Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree with the statement that this is an internal matter for Israel?

2. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has aptly raised the following questions: if the so-called ‘known violent settlers’ are not admitted to the EU because Israel has failed to put them on trial, how would a person be defined as a ‘violent settler’ if he hasn’t been convicted? On the other hand, if he has been convicted, then Israel has brought him to justice and an EU travel ban would be inappropriate. Does the Vice-President/High Representative see an inconsistency in this approach?

 OJ C 339 E, 20/11/2013
Last updated: 12 December 2012Legal notice